Now, A Response to the IPCC
by Handsome Matt
FINALLY! I’ve been holding off on engaging the fray surrounding the IPCC report.
Bottom line is this: Two, non-peer reviewed reports were placed in the final report. The final statement of the report doesn’t center around these two articles, and the articles at best, are anecdotal support.
That’s Just It
They’re anecdotal stories, meant to provide support evidence for the effects of man’s impact on the climate.
The argument that ice climbers aren’t good sources of information is ridiculous. Guides have an oral tradition, passed down, the old guard shares stories and secrets with the new guides. 80 years of observations by ice climbers is an excellent source of information.
I haven’t read the entire report. I am only engaging the debate surrounding two articles placed in the report. Let’s get that out of the way, I want to engage the debate of the article, not the veracity of the report.
This argument highlights a dangerous trend that I have noticed. The desire for irrefutable evidence, and one contradiction entirely disproves a theory.
This is unsettling for me, because it means our schools have failed to properly teach science. A theory, is not disproved by one piece of contradictory evidence. Theories take time to prove or disprove, and even with one being disproven, a scientist simply rewrites the theory.
But this demand for irrefutable proof is dangerous. Nothing can be proven to %100 reliability. On a long enough timeline there is bound to be an anomaly. Even in issues that deal with absolutes: right and wrong, morality, ethics, etc. There are exceptions to the absolutes.
Why has there been a recent move towards these two schools of thought is unknown to me?
Bottom line, the articles weren’t peer reviewed. The debate isn’t on whether they’re correct or not. But two small errors in anecdotal evidence are somehow enough to refute the entirety of the IPCC report?
I have one response to this: