Flaws Found in U.N. Climate Structure

[markbrumbaugh]

You forgot the rest of the experiment – where they make observations that either support or fail to support the hypothesis. The IPCC reports are based on scientific studies, which are based on proven hypotheses…which then can be called theories.

The science chapters of the IPCC WGI stand solid on the foundation of peer-reviewed climate studies – no mistakes were found in those chapters.

But still, science requires high levels of confidence before making claims, while those striving to avoid harms would not require such high levels. .

I didn’t forget the scientific method. I am just pointing out, that a “Claim” is not part of the scientific method. By the way, no hypothesis has been proven. In fact the earth has not warmed as they predicted. One could say their hypothesis was disproved.

But never mind…you have bought the story hook, line, and sinker. I doubt if I can help you unwind and look at things rationally.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. There is nothing a mere mortal can do about it. Deal with it.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

No, you’re just WAY behind the times when it comes to hydropower. The United States has thousands of miles of coastline and hasn’t taken advantage of ocean wave power which has potential energy production of 40-70KW PER METER of ocean. This technology has already been implimented in Europe.

I wonder what that will do to the fish?

 

[Catherine_D]

I wonder what that will do to the fish?

Good question.

Especially since the government is now allowing California’s Central Valley turn into a dust bowl (by turning off the water) because of some tiny fish. I guess no one cares about food for people or jobs if some smelt is involved. And that situation isn’t even connected to the ocean. There are probably way more fish in the ocean to get all upset about!

If ocean wave technology is so good, the environmentalists need to clear the way.

 

[josie_L]

The Pope and certainly the Bishops have proven time and again through history, that while they may be right about certain infallible rulings, they are astonishingly ignorant and completely disregard scientific inquiry. That they chose to propose the false religion of AGW as a moral issue is very unfortunate and only furthers a long heritage of sticking their nose in places is has no expertise.

A little harsh don’t you think, considering all the good that the Church has done vis a vis science, i.e., it might behoove you to move past Galileo (an historical incident that sorely lacks balance).