Is the IPCC Biased?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


.

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.

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.

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'.

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?"

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?"

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?"

Surface detail wrote;
Strong was describing the plot of a novel he wanted to write, not his ideology!

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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?"

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?

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.

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?

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

Surface Detail wrote:

So you think the IPCC reports are propaganda.

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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....

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?

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%.