Skip to comments.UN Climate Report: “No Scientific Merit”
Posted on 02/11/2010 8:26:45 AM PST by RogerFGay
Two years before the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released in 2007, this comment about an early draft of the report came in from Andrew Lacis, a physicist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA lab led for decades by the "godfather" of the global warming hoax, Dr. James Hansen:There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasnt the I.P.C.C. Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.Read more .
It seems like a great deal of modern science falls into this hole. There are many things that we don't really understand (Global Warming and Evolution come to mind) but we feel that the conclusion is nevertheless solid.
We have the attribution: there are many species and this is due to natural selection and evolution. The world is warm, and this is due to modern industrial processes.
Now, as our next step, we need to work on our understanding. And, if I twist my thinking into the following weird pretzel shape, I can posit a particular understanding of some rather questionable evidence and I can thereby justify the conclusion with which I started.
This is science?