Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl_Smith
So there is not even a pretense in the IPCC charter that it is anywhere near comprehensive in it's examination of climate change in spite of all the claims otherwise by it's more enthusiastic advocates, instead being focussed tightly on an already concluded "risk of human-induced climate change"
|
The "risk of human-induced climate change" was already well known when the IPCC was founded and there has been a strong consensus about it among climate scientists at least since the Charney Report of 1979. That consensus is now overwhelming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...-consensus.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl_Smith
hence the lack of much in the way of useful information there on direct and indirect solar factors which instead appear to have been 'played down' in the IPCC reports, given the quite extensive peer reviewed literature on the subject.
|
The extensive peer reviewed literature on the subject concludes that the sun is not responsible for the recent climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sola...al-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosm...al-warming.htm
Your conspiracy theory is simply not credible given the vast number of people who would have to be involved, not just in the IPCC but in the climate science community as a whole as well as the scientists who measure solar activity.