Remember me
▼ Content

Is the IPCC Biased?



Page 2 of 4<1234>
24-04-2017 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Frescomexico wrote:
When viewed as an insulator of infrared radiation from the earth, rather than an emitter from cold to hot, "greenhouse gases" still accomplish a warming effect on the earth's temperature.


The skin temperature of the sunlit side of the ISS reaches 250 deg F.

The sunlit side of the Earth has no place that reaches a temperature anywhere near that.

The ISS has no 'greenhouse' gas or atmosphere.

The Earth does.

If 'greenhouse' gases warm the surface of the Earth, why is the daytime so much COOLER than the ISS?

If infrared light is restricted by 'greenhouse' gas from ever leaving the Earth, this effectively reduces radiance. At the same time, according to 'greenhouse effect', the Earth's temperature is increasing. Since, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, radiance is proportionate to temperature and never inversely proportional, 'greenhouse effect' must violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law to function.

Since neither the surface nor any 'greenhouse' gas is an energy source, how do you account for the increasing temperature difference, which is a decrease of entropy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Remember, this 'effect' can't run to the Sun for its source, since, according to 'greenhouse effect', the gases alone are claimed to be capable, even at night when there is no Sun.

When viewed as an insulator, insulation works both ways. Simply absorbing light does not make an insulator as you are suggesting.

'Greenhouse effect' is not an observation, theory, or anything else. It builds paradoxes.
Global Warming is not even definable. Neither is Climate Change. The only definitions for these use circular arguments.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.


The Parrot Killer
25-04-2017 02:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
rwswan wrote: Why is it that pro-AGW advocates seem to prefer trying to tear down credibility of source material then addressing the issue presented to them?

Because that is ALL they can do. They have NOTHING to support their WACKY religious dogma so they are relegated to shooting the messenger. The warmizombie manual proscribes bullying first followed by cycling through the gamut of logical fallacies, EVASION of all specific questions, rigid denial of science ... and everything peppered liberally with ad hominem/personal attacks.

Did you request rational debate from Ceist? Thou art naive.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 25-04-2017 02:27
25-04-2017 02:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Frescomexico wrote: I can see where the mandate of tha IPCC basically restricts it to man-made global warming. This by itself is a worthwhile subject to study. But they seem to have added that the warming must be dangerous to the ecology of mankind and other species.

You don't understand the IPCC. They are a RELIGIO-POLITICAL organization and have nothing to do with science.

You've got to be kidding that "man-made" CO2 is worthwhile to study.


Frescomexico wrote: The concept of the greenhouse effect was fairly well accepted back in the 19th century. It is recognized as a mechanism that keeps our climate from very cold.

Passive voice fail. There is no such thing in science as "greenhouse effect." It's a myth of the Global Warming religion. You can't accept both physics and "greenhouse effect" at the same time because they mutually contradict.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-04-2017 02:41
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
spot wrote: For research to go into the IPCC report it has to be robust, most likely the research that in your opinion is missed out is not robust. In fact past IPCC reports have been criticized for being to conservative.

It's not research that goes into IPCC reports bur rather flagrantly fabricated fantasy that appeals to the scientifically illiterate.

The truth is irrelevant at the IPCC. They make their money delivering leftist votes to leftist governments.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-04-2017 12:54
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
IBdaMann wrote:
Frescomexico wrote: I can see where the mandate of tha IPCC basically restricts it to man-made global warming. This by itself is a worthwhile subject to study. But they seem to have added that the warming must be dangerous to the ecology of mankind and other species.

You don't understand the IPCC. They are a RELIGIO-POLITICAL organization and have nothing to do with science.

You've got to be kidding that "man-made" CO2 is worthwhile to study.


Frescomexico wrote: The concept of the greenhouse effect was fairly well accepted back in the 19th century. It is recognized as a mechanism that keeps our climate from very cold.

Passive voice fail. There is no such thing in science as "greenhouse effect." It's a myth of the Global Warming religion. You can't accept both physics and "greenhouse effect" at the same time because they mutually contradict.


.


I didn't say man-made CO2, I said man-made global warming, and it is worth study if only to disprove it. Back to passive voice. I think the "greenhouse effect", even though a misnomer, may be an actual phenomenon. It is probably a relatively minor temperature changer, compared to that which the IPCC would like us to believe, confirming the subject of this thread.
Edited on 30-04-2017 12:58
30-04-2017 20:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Frescomexico wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Frescomexico wrote: I can see where the mandate of tha IPCC basically restricts it to man-made global warming. This by itself is a worthwhile subject to study. But they seem to have added that the warming must be dangerous to the ecology of mankind and other species.

You don't understand the IPCC. They are a RELIGIO-POLITICAL organization and have nothing to do with science.

You've got to be kidding that "man-made" CO2 is worthwhile to study.


Frescomexico wrote: The concept of the greenhouse effect was fairly well accepted back in the 19th century. It is recognized as a mechanism that keeps our climate from very cold.

Passive voice fail. There is no such thing in science as "greenhouse effect." It's a myth of the Global Warming religion. You can't accept both physics and "greenhouse effect" at the same time because they mutually contradict.


.


I didn't say man-made CO2, I said man-made global warming, and it is worth study if only to disprove it. Back to passive voice. I think the "greenhouse effect", even though a misnomer, may be an actual phenomenon. It is probably a relatively minor temperature changer, compared to that which the IPCC would like us to believe, confirming the subject of this thread.


Here you are reduced to guessing.

You think the 'greenhouse effect', whatever it is MAY be an actual phenomenon.

It is PROBABLY a minor temperature changer.

Here is the problem with this line of guessing:

'Greenhouse effect', as is typically explained, violates the laws of physics. It is, however, a necessary predicate to 'global warming'.

'Global warming' is not even definable. Is it the surface? No atmosphere needed! Is it the atmosphere just above the surface? How high? Does it include the oceans? How deep? What about underground? How far? What are the starting and ending dates? Why are they important? Why are the intervening dates not important?

Just what IS global warming???

Let's just assume (for a moment) that it is some unspecified period of measurement and taken from 0 ft AGL to 10 ft AGL (the part of the atmosphere you typically stand in, and in which we have most of our thermometers).

There is approximately 170 million square miles on the surface of the Earth. There are an unknown number of thermometers (some typically use some random number around 'several' hundred thousand). Let's just ASSUME 500 thousand of them.

This puts one thermometer (if uniformly spread) approximately every 340 square miles, or approx. a square 18 miles on a side. Unfortunately, thermometers are nowhere near uniformly spaced. They are located in cities and occasionally in remote areas where there is a road to service them.

They will all have to be read simultaneously. Storms move and so does the Sun across the sky.

It has been observed that temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F in a single mile. That means in a single square mile, you can see temperatures differ by as much as 20 deg F. This is due to localized storms, landscape affecting winds, the reluctance air shows when mixing two masses at different temperatures, etc.

To calculate the error of margin (a required number to report in any statistic), you must use the population, not the available thermometer data. The population is the possible temperature gradient.

It is not possible to produce an average temperature of the Earth to an acceptable margin of error. In other words, it is not possible to produce an average temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. Without the ability to determine the global temperature, you can't make either the 1st or the 2nd measurements required to see a change of any sort.

If anyone says the Earth is warming (or cooling), they are full of BS. No one knows. No one CAN know. It doesn't matter if they are the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, some scientist, or just any old schmuck on the street.

You get this far in the problem of 'global warming' ONLY because we made a lot of assumptions to get there in the first place on what 'global warming' actually IS. In addition, you have to ASSUME the times the 1st and 2nd measurements are taken. Why are those times important? Why not some other times? Why are they NOT important?

The Church of Global Warming would rather whitewash this whole thing over, call you names, and generally start questioning your credentials. This argument itself, however, stands regardless of where it came from. Bulverism is a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-04-2017 20:08
04-05-2017 02:58
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(178)
This thread started by posing the question of whether the IPCC is bias. From what I read most respondents, even Into-The-Night, would agree that they are.

Another phenomenon that I notice is the tenacity with which many respondents cling to their beliefs in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary or, at least without convincing evidence to support their convictions. I, also, suffer from this malady. I entered this debate with a firm conviction that the planet is in a natural warming phase unaided by man. I leave the debate believing that man does affect climate, but to an insignificant degree. I will continue my study elsewhere, and hopefully will amend my beliefs ever closer to the truth.

A study of science and the scientists who brought it to its present state reveals that little advance is made by stubbornly ignoring evidence. The truly great scientists continued to remain open-minded.
04-05-2017 03:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
Frescomexico wrote:
This thread started by posing the question of whether the IPCC is bias. From what I read most respondents, even Into-The-Night, would agree that they are.

Another phenomenon that I notice is the tenacity with which many respondents cling to their beliefs in the face of convincing evidence to the contrary or, at least without convincing evidence to support their convictions. I, also, suffer from this malady. I entered this debate with a firm conviction that the planet is in a natural warming phase unaided by man. I leave the debate believing that man does affect climate, but to an insignificant degree. I will continue my study elsewhere, and hopefully will amend my beliefs ever closer to the truth.

A study of science and the scientists who brought it to its present state reveals that little advance is made by stubbornly ignoring evidence. The truly great scientists continued to remain open-minded.


An observation can certainly inspire a theory, but it cannot prove one or legitimize one.

Once the theory is formed, the only interest in science is to try to destroy it.

For inspiring a new theory, yes, creativity plays a big role. Here is where the stubborn don't advance.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2017 23:02
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Into the Night wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
When viewed as an insulator of infrared radiation from the earth, rather than an emitter from cold to hot, "greenhouse gases" still accomplish a warming effect on the earth's temperature.


The skin temperature of the sunlit side of the ISS reaches 250 deg F.

The sunlit side of the Earth has no place that reaches a temperature anywhere near that.

The ISS has no 'greenhouse' gas or atmosphere.

The Earth does.

If 'greenhouse' gases warm the surface of the Earth, why is the daytime so much COOLER than the ISS?

If infrared light is restricted by 'greenhouse' gas from ever leaving the Earth, this effectively reduces radiance. At the same time, according to 'greenhouse effect', the Earth's temperature is increasing. Since, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, radiance is proportionate to temperature and never inversely proportional, 'greenhouse effect' must violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law to function.

Since neither the surface nor any 'greenhouse' gas is an energy source, how do you account for the increasing temperature difference, which is a decrease of entropy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Remember, this 'effect' can't run to the Sun for its source, since, according to 'greenhouse effect', the gases alone are claimed to be capable, even at night when there is no Sun.

When viewed as an insulator, insulation works both ways. Simply absorbing light does not make an insulator as you are suggesting.

'Greenhouse effect' is not an observation, theory, or anything else. It builds paradoxes.
Global Warming is not even definable. Neither is Climate Change. The only definitions for these use circular arguments.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.


OK, I give up. Why are you making sense here and arguing silly things elsewhere?
06-07-2017 23:39
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
07-07-2017 17:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4672)
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


Sounds a bit like Marxism, doesn't it?

The Bourgeois must pay. Industry must be destroyed to free the oppressed workers.

If 'saving the planet' can accomplish that, so much the better! Redirecting like this makes it all acceptable to the public. It's like the 'save the children' argument (which is also used).


The Parrot Killer
07-07-2017 17:38
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


They cleaned it rapidly off of the Internet after I started quoting it but the past Chairman of the IPCC was quoted as saying, "This isn't about global warming - this is about redistribution of wealth". Marx at his best.
07-07-2017 19:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Why are you trying to deceive people by taking quotes out of context? This is from an interview in 1992 in which Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology! In full:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Edited on 07-07-2017 19:40
07-07-2017 19:50
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Surface detail wrote;
Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology!


OK so it wasn't his ideology, only a fantasy.


07-07-2017 19:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface detail wrote;
Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology!


OK so it wasn't his ideology, only a fantasy.

Indeed. If he's a Marxist on the basis of a novel plot, then Agatha Christie must have been a murderer.
07-07-2017 20:34
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface detail wrote;
Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology!


OK so it wasn't his ideology, only a fantasy.

Indeed. If he's a Marxist on the basis of a novel plot, then Agatha Christie must have been a murderer.


You don't think think she fantasized murder when her husband ditched her for another woman? Hey, chicks can be vicious too!

Besides that, Marxism is an ideology that can be put into action. Murder is an action. You're stretching...and you sound like my wife.



Edited on 07-07-2017 20:39
07-07-2017 20:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2160)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface detail wrote;
Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology!

OK so it wasn't his ideology, only a fantasy.

Indeed. If he's a Marxist on the basis of a novel plot, then Agatha Christie must have been a murderer.

AGW denier liar whiners are just mad because Strong (an oil billionaire) faultily acknowledged the environment.
07-07-2017 21:14
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Why are you trying to deceive people by taking quotes out of context? This is from an interview in 1992 in which Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology! In full:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


No, it was NOT taken out of context at all.

Here's your quote;


"We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse."
-- Maurice Strong--



Here's your link.

https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/4513-maurice-strong/page:2


07-07-2017 23:00
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Why are you trying to deceive people by taking quotes out of context? This is from an interview in 1992 in which Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology! In full:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


Hmmm ... I suppose Mein Kampf was just literature too eh?

Mr. Strong was an admitted socialist and advocate for global governance ... that pesky sovereignty was getting in the way ...

Here's another of his nuggets of wisdom ...

""Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing-are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns."


Nasty , brutish middle class ... no steak for you !!!


You don't really want to defend this father of the IPCC do you ?
07-07-2017 23:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Why are you trying to deceive people by taking quotes out of context? This is from an interview in 1992 in which Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology! In full:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


Hmmm ... I suppose Mein Kampf was just literature too eh?

What exactly are you arguing here? That any piece of writing must automatically be some sort of political manifesto? Do you consider Harry Potter to be a plot for a world order of wizards? Or Wind in the Willlows to represent a rural conspiracy of small mammals?
07-07-2017 23:48
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Forget the novel quote. I did 2 min of reading to find dozens of quotes showing he is clearly a Marxist/communist/one world gov guy. There's really no argument here.
07-07-2017 23:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Forget the novel quote. I did 2 min of reading to find dozens of quotes showing he is clearly a Marxist/communist/one world gov guy. There's really no argument here.

It is impossible to deal with global problems such as AGW without some sort of global authority. It is precisely because you nationalist types cannot bear the thought of such a thing that you are forced to deny physical reality.
07-07-2017 23:55
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Why are you trying to deceive people by taking quotes out of context? This is from an interview in 1992 in which Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology! In full:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


Hmmm ... I suppose Mein Kampf was just literature too eh?

What exactly are you arguing here? That any piece of writing must automatically be some sort of political manifesto? Do you consider Harry Potter to be a plot for a world order of wizards? Or Wind in the Willlows to represent a rural conspiracy of small mammals?


I am arguing that Strong set up the IPCC specifically with the intent to put out AGW propaganda with the ultimate purpose of increasing UN global governance and control ... to use a a wealth redistribution scheme controlled and run by UN bureaucrats, after they take their cut of course ... after all they're 'entitled to their entitlements ' ... ( there's a Canadian liberal bureaucrat quote for you)

The whole thing is a modern chicken little story .. only this time the king won't save the chickens ... he's in bed with the foxes
08-07-2017 00:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Why are you trying to deceive people by taking quotes out of context? This is from an interview in 1992 in which Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology! In full:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


Hmmm ... I suppose Mein Kampf was just literature too eh?

What exactly are you arguing here? That any piece of writing must automatically be some sort of political manifesto? Do you consider Harry Potter to be a plot for a world order of wizards? Or Wind in the Willlows to represent a rural conspiracy of small mammals?


I am arguing that Strong set up the IPCC specifically with the intent to put out AGW propaganda with the ultimate purpose of increasing UN global governance and control ... to use a a wealth redistribution scheme controlled and run by UN bureaucrats, after they take their cut of course ... after all they're 'entitled to their entitlements ' ... ( there's a Canadian liberal bureaucrat quote for you)

The whole thing is a modern chicken little story .. only this time the king won't save the chickens ... he's in bed with the foxes

So you think the IPCC reports are propaganda. Tell me, how do you distinguish between factual information and propaganda?
08-07-2017 01:24
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Surface Detail wrote:

So you think the IPCC reports are propaganda.

yes

Tell me, how do you distinguish between factual information and propaganda?


That's not always easy is it?

But let's see
.. a poorly understood scientific theory, believed and accepted
(or cynically being used) by influential elites, funding provided by governments, foundations, think tanks, billionaires, hailed in the news as the only way to save mankind reports made by bureaucrats leading to enforcable public policy at the expense of individuals rights...

^^^^
This has happened before, in America, not too long ago....

I see the same pattern with the current AGW fluff , with significantly LESS evidence to support the theory....

Do you know the one I mean? War stopped it from really taking hold in America, as another nation showed what horrors that 'theory' led too..



Here's a few more clues of propaganda instead of fact:

"The science is settled"
- attempts to stop any inquiries is a red flag

"97% of scientists agree"
- just about as believable as the 99% of North Koreans who 'voted' for the Dear Leader

"this flood (drought/disaster) is because of C02 emissions..."

- yeah, because we've never had floods (droughts, disasters) before.. this is purposeful hype to scare the masses

Give some time I'll start saving the ones I hear on the radio and read in the newspapers every day... I mostly chuckle at them now
Edited on 08-07-2017 01:25
08-07-2017 02:14
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Did you say you're Canadian? No way. I've been there a time or two and all I saw was drunken Indians passed out face up (and down) right outside the bar in the pouring rain. They were just stimulating the economy with their gov check. OK so it was Thompson Manitoba and we were flying out of there on a fishing trip.


Now if you're such a propaganda expert, help me out a little. I'm really on the fence on this one. Is it real?

A report released earlier this year from the climate change watch group DARA estimates that the deaths related to climate change and its chief driver, fossil fuels, were roughly 5 million in 2010. That number makes climate change one of the leading causes of death in the world; for comparison, cancer causes about 7.6 million deaths per year.

https://mic.com/articles/21419/climate-change-kills-5-million-people-every-year#.aYy44Av6H
Edited on 08-07-2017 02:16
08-07-2017 04:21
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
Of course the IPCC has a bias ... the person primarily responsible for starting it was Maurice Strong , and he certainly had an agenda in doing so ...

Here's a quote from him to show a little of his ideology.. an ideology that is rampant at the UN , including the IPCC...

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Why are you trying to deceive people by taking quotes out of context? This is from an interview in 1992 in which Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology! In full:

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"


Hmmm ... I suppose Mein Kampf was just literature too eh?

What exactly are you arguing here? That any piece of writing must automatically be some sort of political manifesto? Do you consider Harry Potter to be a plot for a world order of wizards? Or Wind in the Willlows to represent a rural conspiracy of small mammals?


Unlike grocery store holdups, mass murderers generally plan their crimes months and even years in advance. Obama didn't just happen into office. What is funny is that you FIT his description of those that have to be rubbed out and you think that it's a joke.
08-07-2017 16:39
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Did you say you're Canadian? No way. I've been there a time or two and all I saw was drunken Indians passed out face up (and down) right outside the bar in the pouring rain. They were just stimulating the economy with their gov check. OK so it was Thompson Manitoba and we were flying out of there on a fishing trip.


haha , I live in Manitoba so I know what you're talking about



Now if you're such a propaganda expert, help me out a little. I'm really on the fence on this one. Is it real?


Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda
08-07-2017 17:45
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
RealityCheck wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Did you say you're Canadian? No way. I've been there a time or two and all I saw was drunken Indians passed out face up (and down) right outside the bar in the pouring rain. They were just stimulating the economy with their gov check. OK so it was Thompson Manitoba and we were flying out of there on a fishing trip.


haha , I live in Manitoba so I know what you're talking about



Now if you're such a propaganda expert, help me out a little. I'm really on the fence on this one. Is it real?


Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda


Canadians really have a bad system. Most of the US hospitals on the borders are filled to capacity with Canadians who under the Canadian socialized medicine cannot receive care for serious conditions. So they come to the USA to have them treated. Under Obama they were actually getting these treatments for free.

If people are not forced to work for what they get they won't work. That is socialism and why Canada is doomed sooner or later.
08-07-2017 19:14
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda


Correct, poorly phrased question. So ya think it's propaganda eh?

I don't know. My neighbor passed away last summer at 87 after smoking and drinking his whole life. He seemed healthy but then we had a warm spell and he was gone. I was sure global warming was the cause. I'll look into it.




Edited on 08-07-2017 19:15
08-07-2017 20:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
RealityCheck wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:

So you think the IPCC reports are propaganda.

yes

Tell me, how do you distinguish between factual information and propaganda?


That's not always easy is it?

But let's see
.. a poorly understood scientific theory, believed and accepted
(or cynically being used) by influential elites, funding provided by governments, foundations, think tanks, billionaires, hailed in the news as the only way to save mankind reports made by bureaucrats leading to enforcable public policy at the expense of individuals rights...

^^^^
This has happened before, in America, not too long ago....

I see the same pattern with the current AGW fluff , with significantly LESS evidence to support the theory....

Do you know the one I mean? War stopped it from really taking hold in America, as another nation showed what horrors that 'theory' led too..



Here's a few more clues of propaganda instead of fact:

"The science is settled"
- attempts to stop any inquiries is a red flag

"97% of scientists agree"
- just about as believable as the 99% of North Koreans who 'voted' for the Dear Leader

"this flood (drought/disaster) is because of C02 emissions..."

- yeah, because we've never had floods (droughts, disasters) before.. this is purposeful hype to scare the masses

Give some time I'll start saving the ones I hear on the radio and read in the newspapers every day... I mostly chuckle at them now

So your guide to what is factual and what is propaganda is simply whether it fits your personal belief system. So essentially a religious approach. Have you ever considered that it might be worth examining claims to see if there is evidence to support them? Would that not be a more rational way of determining whether they are true or not?
08-07-2017 20:40
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda


Correct, poorly phrased question. So ya think it's propaganda eh?

I don't know. My neighbor passed away last summer at 87 after smoking and drinking his whole life. He seemed healthy but then we had a warm spell and he was gone. I was sure global warming was the cause. I'll look into it.
08-07-2017 20:42
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda


Correct, poorly phrased question. So ya think it's propaganda eh?

I don't know. My neighbor passed away last summer at 87 after smoking and drinking his whole life. He seemed healthy but then we had a warm spell and he was gone. I was sure global warming was the cause. I'll look into it.


You always have to remember that age, while strongly effected by lifestyle, at it's base is far more hereditary than anything else.
08-07-2017 20:47
Wake
★★★★★
(2944)
Surface Detail wrote: So your guide to what is factual and what is propaganda is simply whether it fits your personal belief system. So essentially a religious approach. Have you ever considered that it might be worth examining claims to see if there is evidence to support them? Would that not be a more rational way of determining whether they are true or not?


Since there is no definition of a "normal climate" you cannot say that there is climate change. That makes you the one with a religious affiliation to AGW.

I pointed out that the satellite record showed no warming whereas NOAA charts are off-the-scale. That puts NOAA in the field of nothing more than propaganda.
08-07-2017 20:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda


Correct, poorly phrased question. So ya think it's propaganda eh?

I don't know. My neighbor passed away last summer at 87 after smoking and drinking his whole life. He seemed healthy but then we had a warm spell and he was gone. I was sure global warming was the cause. I'll look into it.


You always have to remember that age, while strongly effected by lifestyle, at it's base is far more hereditary than anything else.

I find that age correlates very strongly with date of birth.
08-07-2017 20:59
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1672)
Wake wrote:
I pointed out that the satellite record showed no warming whereas NOAA charts are off-the-scale. That puts NOAA in the field of nothing more than propaganda.

No, that was just you being unable to read a graph any better than you can read text. Anyway, seems the satellite record was wrong:

Satellite temperature data, leaned on by climate change doubters, revised sharply upward

"This new study shows that after corrections to one of the two satellite temperature records are made, there is little discrepancy at all and that estimates of global warming from both Earth and space are consistent. In fact, the revised satellite-based temperature estimate shows even a little bit more warming since late 1978 than the surface-based record from NASA.The corrections to the satellite data were published in the Journal of Climate on Monday by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems, who have maintained a record of satellite temperature estimates since 2003. They bring the satellite temperature record into close alignment with multiple surface-based records maintained by government centers in the United States (NOAA and NASA) and United Kingdom (Hadley Centre)."
08-07-2017 21:12
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda


Correct, poorly phrased question. So ya think it's propaganda eh?

I don't know. My neighbor passed away last summer at 87 after smoking and drinking his whole life. He seemed healthy but then we had a warm spell and he was gone. I was sure global warming was the cause. I'll look into it.


If you live in a modern developed country don't waste your time since (as per the 'report') only 3% of climate change caused deaths occur there....
08-07-2017 21:34
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
RealityCheck wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Your question is not well phrased... That is really propaganda


Correct, poorly phrased question. So ya think it's propaganda eh?

I don't know. My neighbor passed away last summer at 87 after smoking and drinking his whole life. He seemed healthy but then we had a warm spell and he was gone. I was sure global warming was the cause. I'll look into it.


If you live in a modern developed country don't waste your time since (as per the 'report') only 3% of climate change caused deaths occur there....


Thanks so much for the heads up and saving me the time. I had already started filling out the paperwork for a gov funded research grant, but I don't think I'll chase it on only 3%.


08-07-2017 21:36
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Surface Detail wrote:

So your guide to what is factual and what is propaganda is simply whether it fits your personal belief system.So essentially a religious approach.


umm no.. the 'religious approach' is certainly one of the main effects of AGW propaganda on those who have become true believers.. accepting, without question outrageous claims such as 'the science is settled'


Have you ever considered that it might be worth examining claims to see if there is evidence to support them?


Yes, and I have yet to see ANY evidence that CO2 emissions are having any measurable effect on global climate.


Would that not be a more rational way of determining whether they are true or not?


of course..
08-07-2017 21:38
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
GasGuzzler wrote:

Thanks so much for the heads up and saving me the time. I had already started filling out the paperwork for a gov funded research grant, but I don't think I'll chase it on only 3%.


You're welcome
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Is the IPCC Biased?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud904-01-2018 00:14
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 20:37
IPCC and Climate Alarm - How It Started3517-02-2017 21:53
IPCC does not allow Chinese scientists and data, so we do not accept IPCC's position3829-02-2016 00:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact