[Terrapreta] IPCC "science"

[F. Marc de Piolenc]

Wayne gives an excellent description about how real science works, 
but that has nothing to do with how the IPCC works. The only 
qualification to participate in the IPCC is a willingness to show up, 
and the "conclusions" are written by politically-motivated 
"observers." Any dissent by participants from those conclusions is 
simply ignored.

Numbers are simply thrown at us: X number of "scientists" 
participated in the discussion. The published conclusion was that the 
planet is heating up and Man is responsible. Therefore, X scientists 
believe this, and who are we to dare doubt it?

That's not science - it's demagoguery.

Alas, the dissenters are making the same mistake. There's a petition 
circulating with thousands of signatures that purports to prove that 
anthropogenic climate change is false. Of course, it no more does 
that than the global warming lobby's nose-counting proves the 
positive. The truth is what it is, and 68 million Frenchmen, or 3,000 
scientists, CAN be wrong. Kevin is right - consensus science...isn't, 
and there's no need to rely on "trust" and belief in any case. There 
are two simple facts, accessible to all, that refute the basic 
hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

Until the ice core data are refuted and until a satisfactory 
explanation is found for the atmospheric temperature gradients that 
are the inverse of those predicted by greenhouse models, I will not 
believe in anthropogenic global warming, no matter how many 
politicians say it's so. Nor can I endorse the new casino game of 
carbon-credit trading, for the same reason. Undoubtedly some 
interested parties will gain power and influence on the backs of this 
"consensus," and some will enrich themselves, but it will be an 
unmitigated horror for billions who are trying to lift themselves 
from poverty, and for anybody who wants to retain his freedom.

There are GOOD reasons to pursue Terra Preta. If we rest our pitch on 
carbon sequestration, we will end up with egg on our faces and no 
credibility, lumped in the public mind with every other gasoline-pill 
"solution" to a non-problem. Let's push it for what it really 
promises - a way to sustainably farm soils that are normally 
exhausted in three harvests or less.

FMP

Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] CO2 in the oceans
To: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>,	David Yarrow
	<dyarrow at nycap.rr.com>, terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID: <20080621090622.BBL75335 at mpmail2.jmu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Kevin, David and All,

Belief and trust in science are generally founded on following a 
rigorous set of methods designed to eliminate bias and get at an 
empirical evaluation of a particular phenomenon.  This rigor is then 
judged by a peer group of scientists in a refereed system that 
attempts with vigor to weed out junk science and only allow to be 
published the material that passes muster.  James Hansen is one 
scientist who has done this with regularity.  His "opinions" are 
based on considered judgment based on rigorous scientific 
principles.  Thus the "trust" has a foundation in broad community 
assessment based upon the principle of doubt.  Scientists are 
skeptics at their core.  Thus when the community reaches approximate 
consensus it ought not be ignored or rejected.