Originally posted by seer
View Post
This is of course utter nonsense. If the IPCC is silent on the issue, there could be a dozen reasons for their silence. Maybe the warming is natural. Maybe the warming is part natural, part human caused. Maybe the evidence is equivocal. Maybe the evidence points to human causes, but the uncertainty is too great for a definitive statement. Maybe the time period in question is out of the scope of their mandate.
But of course, none of those possibilities impinges on Dr. Moore's brilliant mind. Instead, he looks at the IPCC's silence on the issue and inserts his own ideas of what the IPCC should have said as given fact, and proceeds to attack it.
This kind of argument is intellectually dishonest to the core.
Comment