Now, here is a section that Merlin didn't print, however, it is worth discussing:
Just so that you are aware Allison, I did post the link for all to read at their leisure. I was not trying to "remove" anything. I wanted to highlight some of the comments of my friend, while at the same time claryify something I said earlier to Jason and offer a little unbiased evidence to support it.
For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.
Once you rule out the sun as the major factor contributing to global warming and put the onus on human activity (something some of us have been trying to tell the global warming skeptics for month), the chief cause tends to be human activity.
I'd hearken you back to the discussion we had prior (at the other forum) where we mutually agreed that "editing at the hands of politicians is a bad thing". I don't care if it helps or hinders my viewpoint - Disinformation or lying by ommission is ALWAYS bad. Bureaucrats - doing anything at all is bad enough, much less authoring a scientific report. And they wonder why people accuse them of doing bad things... Also remember - I'm
not one of the supporters of the "SUN THEORY", although I still disagree that it has been conclusively studied in order to rule it out as a contributor (my stance all along).
Game, set and match. People can try and claim otherwise, but (much like Saudi Arabia) they are fooling themselves. Erasing the information from the report doesn't make it any less a reality.
I certainly don't see it that way, and I doubt many other do either. The sections of reports released so far still have not included the data that is promised. For now, we are still viewing the "fit for public consumption editions". I'm awaiting the parts that no amount of editing will ever be able to conceal - the results of scieintific testing, the methods and procedures. That's where the proof is, and that's what'll change my mind.
