I am not. By all means read and learn. But its nonsensical to give more weight to your own conclusions which are inevitably based on a tiny subset of all the available science (and likely, with very limited ability to properly parse the science) than to the IPCC report. What the IPCC does, is not producing science but reviewing science, what you seem to be doig, and that by itself is a monumental task thats carried about by 100s of our brightest scientists. To put it mildly, a single layman is not likely to make a more accurate assessment.

Ok, then I will continue to do what I have been saying I was doing this entire time. Most of this thread has been me trying to find out what source of information was considered authoritative. Skepticalscience, IPCC, etc. Once that was established (I am the one who first introduced the IPCC reports into this thread), I thought we could stop talking about the earth turning into venus etc. Then P4man moved the goalposts back with his talk of anoxic events, and now we have returned to accepting the IPCC as the authoritative source. If the media disagrees with the IPCC, then the media is wrong. Agreed?


I trust the IPCC as much as I trust any group of scientists, I have never even read the climategate emails. I bet it is just a bunch of technical talk taken out of context. Maybe some extra "we want to prove this theory" rather than only testing hypotheses. This is normal (although not really good) for scientists to do.

I think the biggest difference between us is that I trust scientists less than you.

Take a hard investigative look at Frederick Seitz, the Oregon Petition and the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. They are the prime sources for creating skepticism regarding climate science. Look hard at their methods, their credentials, their funding sources, and their motivations.

Their methods are deceptive. I've explained this.

Their credentials are typically self appointed economic theorists.

Their funding sources are always Big Oil.

Their motivations are zero regulations and property rights (libertarians).

The information is all there.

You need to understand the source of your skepticism.

Let's assume that you might not be fully able to parse the science (which is probably true for most of us). An alternative and equally viable method to strengthen your view of climate science data is to look closely at the best arguments that big money can produce against climate change. And those arguments lack credibility when examined closer.

I'm strongly suggesting that you take a hard look at the Oregon Petition. Look at its methods and credibility. Question why it was created, given the means with which it was created.

Oh? You know the source of my skepticism? I have never heard of the things you are talking about, yet they are the most likely source of my skepticism?

The source of my skepticism has been described very clearly in this thread. I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist. They both agreed that things were not nearly as clearcut as the media/NASA would have people believe. I began reading various AGW and denier sites. I read the most recent lindzen paper and the peer reviewer comments from PNAS. The I moved on to the IPCC reports. So far the IPCC reports have confirmed for me that things are much more nuanced than most people are willing to take the time to understand. Why else would the thing be 900 pages long?

I have no idea who you are arguing with but it is not me.

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.

So, yes, I do know the source of your skepticism. It's in part the words of Richard Lindzen, as acknowledged by you just now, and apparently with you not realizing that he is an associate of the very firms and documents that I've been claiming are the source of your skepticism.

I don't know why you didn't just post this since it is so short.

Oregon Petition:

This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.

+