Crick asked that we look up the WG1 AR5 from the IPCC. He said my questions about the science would be answered. I did. Here are some observations:
1. The IPCC is mostly made up of politicians and some professors, not the underlying scientists;
The IPCC was created by the governments of the member nations of the UN. Call them politicians if you like. It is not staffed by politicians. It's chartered function is to produce reports in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Those report are required to cover "the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential
impacts and options for
adaptation and
mitigation." If you think those are tasks that politicians would take on for themselves, I think you need to reexamine YOUR assumptions. Can you tell us what source told you that they are staffed primarily by politicians?
That they are not staffed by the "underlying" scientists doing the research (and never have been) is no surprise to anyone even basically familiar with the IPCC. The IPCC neither conducts nor funds the conduct of research. They simply collect and assess the research being conducted in the field by qualified scientists and published in peer reviewed literature. Those assessments undergo intense and thorough technical review. The draft reports are subject to approval by the governments which sponsor this work. That is their right. But the assessment reports are not researched nor composed by politicians.
2. The AR5 is nothing more than summaries and assumptions of all underlying work with words like "High confidence", "likely", etc. So it is meaningless without the underlying studies.
The conclusions of peer reviewed studies are not "assumptions". The studies on which these assessments are based are all clearly footnoted and all are available. To say the report is meaningless because - what - they didn't include the text of the entire studies - because you're apparently incapable of looking something up? Was this really the first time you'd ever read any of AR5? The first time you'd read any of the IPCC's assessment reports? But you think you know better? You think you know what they did wrong? Good ******* grief.
3. It is impossible to absorb correctly because it is literally chocked full references and graphs, each one a class study in itself.
Too much information? I can see your denier buddies cringing... even the not-very-bright ones.
4. When trying to drill down on one assumption, "level of man made CO2", you realize that these issues are so complicated that these people do not have a clue.
Davey, Davey, Davey... someone around here truly does not have a clue, but it is not the authors of AR5.
For instance, man made CO2 in US is taken, in part, from fossil fuel production.
Almost. It is taken from fossil fuel consumption.
Then you realize that their "confidence" in knowing levels of other nations (China, India, etc.) is VERY LOW. Well that is just the rest of the world. Their numbers are bogus.
Their numbers for the estimated amount of GHG's humans have put into the atmosphere (and the ocean and the ground) is quite good. There are two basic methods: measure the isotopic characteristics of the CO2 and do the bookkeeping estimate to which you refer. CO2 from fossil fuels has a different isotopic mix than does CO2 from the ongoing carbon dioxide cycle. The numbers from the two methods agree very well. Humans are responsible for almost every single bit of the 120 ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1750. Their numbers are not "bogus".
Especially in view of assumptions based on point 4 degrees in 20 years
What assumptions are you talking about and what do they have to do with determining human GHG emissions?
, I would put this in the range of "low confidence".
You would, would you? That is distressing. Did you let them know?
5. Their solution is cap and trade.
It is? And this was the view of the First Working Group? Where did you get that Dave?
Therefore, the UN would tax all countries, making itself an uber country taxing authority.
That's uber-nonsense Dave.
That means, these people are NOT third party disinterested observers. They are asking us to make them taxing over lords.
Makes you want to go over their assumptions one more time.
Oi VEY!
Given that we all live on the same planet, drink the same water and breathe the same air, they were always interested in this topic. It's why the UN formed the IPCC: concern. But if you want to suggest that the UN taxing the world is a motive for the IPCC to lie about AGW, you're going to have to take a number to get in line with the rest of disconnected whack-jobs who think the world's climate scientists are making it all up to get rich on research grants. Although, tell your fellow whack-jobbers your idea. They might give you head of line privileges.
