Comments on: GCCI Report #1: Overall Tone

By: JeffM

JeffM — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:34:33 +0000

To me it looks like they are following the IPCC’s assessment report dictum, whereby The Summary for Policy Makers is first written and released, followed months later by the science to support it (and excluding science that might case doubt). In the case of the GCCI however, no science was provided.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a book in 2005 titled “Decision Making for the Environment: Social and Behavioral Science Research Priorities”. On page 86, the book says: “By focusing scientific efforts increasingly on decision relevance, such a program of measurement, evaluation and analysis would increase the the influence of empirical evidence and empirically supported theory in environmental decisions relative to the influents of politics and ideology”.

As I interpret the meaning of these words, the NAS says that focusing scientific research to support policy objectives, will help achieve the desired politic outcome. It would provide support for a political agenda. It appears that the scientists who wrote this were actually Political Scientists.

This book has been taken to heart by the authors of the IPCC and GCCI reports. It helps explain why the research of skeptical scientists is ignored and/or trivialized. To do otherwise would “de-focus” the relevance of pro-AGW science and make it more difficult for the politicians to sell their agenda to the public.

By: Highlander

Highlander — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:05:18 +0000

As always, one ~must~ remember: The effect can ~never~ overcome the cause.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:37:57 +0000

So, you are saying this report is IPCC LITE??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By: RadonX

RadonX — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:37:02 +0000

Since data indicates warming has stopped for several years (only temporarily, we’re assured by ‘Climate Change’ proponents), should these predictions be contingent on its resumption? Or do they apply, as would seem the case, irrespective any actual natural events?

If they are absolute, “unequivocal” with respect to actual reality, doesn’t they make them, in every sense of the word, “super-natural”?

If so, they are clearly Religion, and not Science, by any definition of those terms.