[ QUOTE ]
The IPCC is a highly politcal organization. Most of the so called "scientists" are government shills who are part of a international group that hates the US and capitalism as a whole.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's a big claim. Any evidence to support it?
[ QUOTE ]
Funny how all the third world countries get a pass, eh? Mass polluters like China get a free pass.
[/ QUOTE ]
Politics, unfortunately.
[ QUOTE ]
Ironically, the "scientists" claim their forward thinking is saving the planet, like they honestly think they can influence a 4 Billion year old planet.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ask even the most fervent denier what would happen if we increased CO2 concentration three times (still < 1% of atmosphere), and they will tell you that the temperate will rise significantly. CO2 traps heats - this is well known science and beyond dispute. It's a question of degree, not effect.
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly what was the worldwide temprature in 1847? Yep, the global warming crowd has no idea. Yet, they draw iron clad conclusions on a 4B year old planet by looking at temp data from the past 30 years.
Suckers born every day.
[/ QUOTE ]
The conclusions aren't "ironclad". In the first report in 1997 they were "tentative", and the evidence since then as well as improved model resolution from greatly increased computing power have led them to say
* "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
* "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
If you read the actual report:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fo...essment_Report
you will see that nothing is "iron clad", but based on probability assessment with error bars so wide that conclusions are not controversial. Let me repeat that again. The conclusions are not controversial. Some are actually deliberately understated in order to get total agreement among the scientific community. The anthropogenic warming model includes "level of scientific understanding" in its assessment of error ranges. The conclusions stand.
It's obvious to me that you haven't examined the evidence at all. If you still hold the same opinion after doing so, then we have something to discuss.