3 ms·
You see references to the IPCC here. Safely ignore those. The ipcc is a political organisation - it's in the title. It was setup specifically to find evidenc
by brc 11y ago
You see references to the IPCC here. Safely ignore those. The ipcc is a political organisation - it's in the title. It was setup specifically to find evidence for a set theory, not to study the problem.
Plus the models that the IPCC uses to forecast disaster have been proven to have zero predictive power.
I would continue to read books written by scientists on both sides of the argument, and ignore anything said by a politically connected person or group.
- galactical 11y agoI somewhat agree with this. The IPCC book looks like it's got all the information I'm looking for (maybe a little long for my level of interest), but it's from a non-objective organization so it could be as biased as the book I've got, just in the other direction.
- brc 11y agoEvery book you read is biased one way or the other, because the issue has created pathways to power. Given that they are all biased, it's safe to ignore the ones created by governments, which can reap the most benefit. The ipcc reports are two things - a bundling of scientific literature, and a policy statement. There is always a gap between the two, and the policy report comes out before the scientific statement, and is developed with the type of diplomatic horse trading that comes with any type of government report, only more so because it is international diplomacy.