Why the mistrust of the IPCC?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Why the mistrust of the IPCC?

Page 1 of 2

Why the mistrust of the IPCC?25-01-2019 15:08
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	It seems to me many people here mistrust the IPCC, a body of volunteer climate scientists who in certain frequency study the climate science literature for recent findings relevant to anthropogenic climate change and report to the UN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change Where does your mistrust of what the IPCC says (climate change is real and man made and there is action necessary to mitigate it's impacts) come from? What would the motivation of this body be to exaggerate or hide certain information from the general public? I suspect it is because the message of the IPCC is that we need to radically change, individually and as a society, and we don't want to change because it's nice to have so much cheap energy at our disposal. Is that it?
25-01-2019 15:14
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Do you trust all political parties? Do you undertstand that the IPCC is political? Do you understand that those who push this body get a lot of money out of the gravy train?
25-01-2019 15:18
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Tim the plumber wrote: Do you undertstand that the IPCC is political? Do you mean the individual scientists working on the IPCC panels? You think they are politically motivated, e.g. trying to push their political believes (left, green etc.) through faulty science? E.g. by including only the studies that are in line with their political stance of leftist regulation and green politics? If so, would you point me to one significant study that was left out by the IPCC? What's your reason for believing that the many scientists of the IPCC share a common political belief? Tim the plumber wrote: Do you understand that those who push this body get a lot of money out of the gravy train? As I said, the IPCC scientists don't get paid. Where does the money come from, where does it go? Edited on 25-01-2019 15:20
25-01-2019 19:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Do you undertstand that the IPCC is political? Do you mean the individual scientists working on the IPCC panels? You think they are politically motivated, e.g. trying to push their political believes (left, green etc.) through faulty science? E.g. by including only the studies that are in line with their political stance of leftist regulation and green politics? If so, would you point me to one significant study that was left out by the IPCC? What's your reason for believing that the many scientists of the IPCC share a common political belief? Tim the plumber wrote: Do you understand that those who push this body get a lot of money out of the gravy train? As I said, the IPCC scientists don't get paid. Where does the money come from, where does it go? There are no scientists on the IPCC. They are bureaucrats that compile 'scientific' information. It is not science at all. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
25-01-2019 20:36
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Do you undertstand that the IPCC is political? Do you mean the individual scientists working on the IPCC panels? You think they are politically motivated, e.g. trying to push their political believes (left, green etc.) through faulty science? E.g. by including only the studies that are in line with their political stance of leftist regulation and green politics? If so, would you point me to one significant study that was left out by the IPCC? What's your reason for believing that the many scientists of the IPCC share a common political belief? Tim the plumber wrote: Do you understand that those who push this body get a lot of money out of the gravy train? As I said, the IPCC scientists don't get paid. Where does the money come from, where does it go? The IPCC is almost entirely politicians who are paid - a great deal. NO scientist who reports to them is a "volunteer" and they receive millions a year in research grants. So exactly where do you get the idea that they are or ever were voluntary?

26-01-2019 00:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Do you undertstand that the IPCC is political? Do you mean the individual scientists working on the IPCC panels? You think they are politically motivated, e.g. trying to push their political believes (left, green etc.) through faulty science? E.g. by including only the studies that are in line with their political stance of leftist regulation and green politics? If so, would you point me to one significant study that was left out by the IPCC? What's your reason for believing that the many scientists of the IPCC share a common political belief? Tim the plumber wrote: Do you understand that those who push this body get a lot of money out of the gravy train? As I said, the IPCC scientists don't get paid. Where does the money come from, where does it go? The IPCC is almost entirely politicians who are paid - a great deal. NO scientist who reports to them is a "volunteer" and they receive millions a year in research grants. So exactly where do you get the idea that they are or ever were voluntary? This is correct. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 01:53
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	The UNITED NATIONS created the IPCC, the panelist were hand picked, and offered the position. When did 'volunteer' ever mean work for free? In very few and simplistic ways, but in most cases there is some form of compensation. Might not be a paycheck for a salary or wage, but most get paid for their time, travel, accomodations, equipment, assistants, and every other expenses. Politicians don't commonly go straight into politics, they had careers in many other fields, most were lawyers (professional liers), but others managed corporations, or were successful in many other fields. The IPCC is a research project, the panelists are the managers of the budget, compile and present the results. These managers hier out specific tasks, that produce the desired results. The experts they hier, are paid their usual rates. Not all these tasks are climate related, like marketing experts. People aren't generally appointed to positions of a high responsibility, without some credibility. No one who has earned that status, is going to give it away for free. They expect to get paid, since they might believe in the project, it also depends on a lot of other people doing their jobs, and if it fails, or proven a wrong, they lose their credibility, which would be tough to regain. If proven a fraud, and they proven they were knowly willing participants, they could go to jail.
26-01-2019 02:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	HarveyH55 wrote: The UNITED NATIONS created the IPCC, the panelist were hand picked, and offered the position. When did 'volunteer' ever mean work for free? In very few and simplistic ways, but in most cases there is some form of compensation. Might not be a paycheck for a salary or wage, but most get paid for their time, travel, accomodations, equipment, assistants, and every other expenses. Politicians don't commonly go straight into politics, they had careers in many other fields, most were lawyers (professional liers), but others managed corporations, or were successful in many other fields. Yup. No one works for free. I think you will find, though, that politicians DO commonly go straight into politics. They very often have no other career. Cases in point: Hillary and Bill Clinton. Obama. Kennedy (after a military service), Eisenhower (after a military service), Pres. Johnson. etc. HarveyH55 wrote: The IPCC is a research project, the panelists are the managers of the budget, compile and present the results. No, it's a propaganda center. They do no actual research, other than to find ways to push their agenda. HarveyH55 wrote: These managers hier out specific tasks, that produce the desired results. The experts they hier, are paid their usual rates. Not all these tasks are climate related, like marketing experts. People aren't generally appointed to positions of a high responsibility, without some credibility. Actually, that happens all the time. Of course it could also be argued, that the IPCC is not a position of high responsibility. HarveyH55 wrote: No one who has earned that status, is going to give it away for free. Whether they earned it or not, they aren't going to give it away for free. HarveyH55 wrote: They expect to get paid, since they might believe in the project, it also depends on a lot of other people doing their jobs, and if it fails, or proven a wrong, they lose their credibility, which would be tough to regain. If proven a fraud, and they proven they were knowly willing participants, they could go to jail. For what crime? Pushing a religion is not illegal (at least in the United States). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 04:18
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	The Clintons are both lawyers, Obama has a law degree, although I don't think ever passed a Bar exam, it was good enough for him to teach law. The rest were a little before my time. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer, Ronald Reagan an actor. I'm confident that most started out as lawyers, whether just earning the degree (more or less), or actual practicing as a career. Climatology functions as a religion, but doesn't claim to be one. It's a fraud, a confidence game, and people are profiting from the non-believers, just as much as the willing donations of the devoted. As carbon policies are proposed, partially accepted/implemented, a lot of people are victimized, as their retirement investments (401k, in my case) is drained. True, the IPCC does no science, or little else, themselves, but they do decide who gets paid, and for what service, and decide what results are expect of them. Mostly they handle the checkbook, and the party planning (conferences).
26-01-2019 11:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	HarveyH55 wrote: The Clintons are both lawyers, True, but they went almost immediately into politics. HarveyH55 wrote: Obama has a law degree, although I don't think ever passed a Bar exam, it was good enough for him to teach law. His 'teaching' was actually activism...politics. HarveyH55 wrote: The rest were a little before my time. Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer, Ronald Reagan an actor. Very true. I also never said all politicians had no other careers. There are other notable exceptions: Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were tobacco plantation owners. Ben Franklin was a scientist. HarveyH55 wrote: I'm confident that most started out as lawyers, whether just earning the degree (more or less), or actual practicing as a career. Earning a law degree isn't being a lawyer. It also can be argued that lawyers ARE politicians, since they use words and various arguments to convince people. In the end, it really doesn't matter here or there. HarveyH55 wrote: Climatology functions as a religion, but doesn't claim to be one. Indeed, it denies being one. To admit to being a religion takes away any claim it has to be a science. It isn't science anyway, of course, but this is why they deny being a religion, even though they are. HarveyH55 wrote: It's a fraud, a confidence game, and people are profiting from the non-believers, just as much as the willing donations of the devoted. If you want to lock up such fraudsters, you will have to lock up every salesman, lawyer, priest, and journalist. You will also have to pass laws restricting certain religions, such as the Church of Global Warming. The federal government is prohibited from passing such a law. HarveyH55 wrote: As carbon policies are proposed, partially accepted/implemented, a lot of people are victimized, as their retirement investments (401k, in my case) is drained. Unfortunate, but 401k's are not protected. I suppose you could go after the account manager for mismanaging the funds, but that will be a difficult battle. You would have to show they violated securities laws. HarveyH55 wrote: True, the IPCC does no science, or little else, themselves, but they do decide who gets paid, and for what service, and decide what results are expect of them. Mostly they handle the checkbook, and the party planning (conferences). This is absolutely correct. That's exactly what they do. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 15:00
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	You are wrong. The members of the IPCC working groups are scientists, not politicians, they write the assessment reports and study the literature. You can even look up the authors on this page: https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/authors/authors.php?q=35&p=1 If you claim that list is fake then I'm sorry, I'm not discussing this, you're obviously paranoid and absolutely unwilling to accept a scientific result that you don't enjoy. Now, you could argue that these scientists all share a political agenda, that they're all part of a big conspiracy to push their leftist, green political ideas on to everyone else. I would detest that just like the next non-leftie guy. But I'm sorry, at that point you would -- again -- sound hopelessly paranoid. Edited on 26-01-2019 15:02
26-01-2019 17:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: You are wrong. The members of the IPCC working groups are scientists, not politicians, they write the assessment reports and study the literature. You can even look up the authors on this page: https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/authors/authors.php?q=35&p=1 If you claim that list is fake then I'm sorry, I'm not discussing this, you're obviously paranoid and absolutely unwilling to accept a scientific result that you don't enjoy. Now, you could argue that these scientists all share a political agenda, that they're all part of a big conspiracy to push their leftist, green political ideas on to everyone else. I would detest that just like the next non-leftie guy. But I'm sorry, at that point you would -- again -- sound hopelessly paranoid. IPCC Panel: Meets in plenary session about once a year and controls the organization's structure, procedures, and work program. The Panel is the IPCC corporate entity.[18] Chair: Elected by the Panel. Secretariat: Oversees and manages all activities. Supported by UNEP and WMO. Bureau: Elected by the Panel. Chaired by the Chair. 30 members include IPCC Vice-Chairs, Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Working Groups and Task Force. Working Groups: Each has two Co-Chairs, one from the developed and one from developing world, and a technical support unit. Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Working Group II: Assesses vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, consequences, and adaptation options. Co-Chairs: Hans-Otto Pörtner and Debra Roberts (neither is a climate scientist - political appointees) Working Group III: Assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change. Co-Chairs: Priyadarshi R. Shukla and Jim Skea (Priyadarshi - she is the source of the computer models that do not work Skea os not a climate scientist.) Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (they get their information from NASA) The reports and models that come from this panel do not reflect even a passing connection with reality. Not only do the computer models not predict even closely the temperature changes, but neither do they even model PAST temperatures that they were supposedly based upon. It is important to understand that this is a group funded almost entirely by Obama originally and constructed in such a manner that if given the power they are demanding would be able to order entire countries how much energy they could have. China and India are well aware of this and simply pay only word of mouth attention to them because it weakens Europe and America to act as if they should play along with this phony group.
26-01-2019 20:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: You are wrong. The members of the IPCC working groups are scientists, not politicians, they write the assessment reports and study the literature. You can even look up the authors on this page: There are no scientists in the IPCC. The authors on the paper is not the IPCC, but contributors to a paper. littleendian wrote: https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/authors/authors.php?q=35&p=1 These are not scientists. They are 'climate scientists'. They deny science and mathematics. littleendian wrote: If you claim that list is fake then I'm sorry, No, it's not fake, but these are not scientists. littleendian wrote: I'm not discussing this, you're obviously paranoid and absolutely unwilling to accept a scientific result that you don't enjoy. Science isn't a result. It isn't a paper. It isn't even scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. This paper presents no falsifiable theories. littleendian wrote: Now, you could argue that these scientists all share a political agenda, that they're all part of a big conspiracy to push their leftist, green political ideas on to everyone else. That's exactly what they are. littleendian wrote: I would detest that just like the next non-leftie guy. You ARE a leftie guy. You are attempting to justify the socialism and Marxism to control energy markets by dictat. littleendian wrote: But I'm sorry, at that point you would -- again -- sound hopelessly paranoid. Psychoquackery. Science isn't paranoid. It also shows why these people (and you) are wrong. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 21:11
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Night, you can define things any way you like and you can keep coming up with clever linguistic hacks, but all you're doing is bogging down discussion in a hopeless mess, which is I assume serving your purpose. You're not convincing anyone of your position. There are free-market solutions, we need to divorce this scientific issue from the politics right now. There is no time. You simply decide that anyone working on climate change is not a scientist, no matter their credentials or professional background. You can do that, but it's the same as living in a dream world of your own creation. Must be nice. Meanwhile the rest of us are stuck in a situation where people like yourself are blocking the necessary action to tackle an issue that is potentially catastrophic on a global scale. All because you don't want to grow up and face reality. Edited on 26-01-2019 21:19
26-01-2019 21:17
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. Masson-Delmotte is most certainly not a politician.

26-01-2019 21:50
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: I would detest that just like the next non-leftie guy. You ARE a leftie guy. You are attempting to justify the socialism and Marxism to control energy markets by dictat. Ah, thank you Night, our interaction was bugging me, but now I have closure. You confuse me with your political enemy. You confuse politics with science, you mix them up. And you hide behind all kinds of tricks to conceal that because you don't like the consequences of what science is telling us is likely. You're just like those lefties trying to use this for their agenda, except the other way around. Same game. Edited on 26-01-2019 21:52
26-01-2019 22:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	littleendian wrote: Night, you can define things any way you like and you can keep coming up with clever linguistic hacks, but all you're doing is bogging down discussion in a hopeless mess, which is I assume serving your purpose. You're not convincing anyone of your position. There are free-market solutions, we need to divorce this scientific issue from the politics right now. There is no time. You simply decide that anyone working on climate change is not a scientist, no matter their credentials or professional background. You can do that, but it's the same as living in a dream world of your own creation. Must be nice. Meanwhile the rest of us are stuck in a situation where people like yourself are blocking the necessary action to tackle an issue that is potentially catastrophic on a global scale. All because you don't want to grow up and face reality. From fossil records, it seems pretty clear to me that the climate was warmer, winters mild (massive reptiles). Plant life was abundant, to feed the critters. Plants do well in warmer climates, and even better with much higher levels of CO2 (1200-2000 ppm). This was all before the last great ice age, and must of been for quite a while, for those large reptiles to evolve, since their food intake must have been quite a bit. I see the higher CO2 levels and warming climate, as a good sign, that the climate is returning to a better state, for supporting life. Personally, I like the warmer climate, one reason I moved to Florida. We can only guess at the climate from the distant past, since fossils are the only records. As a species, this is our first warm period, so there is really nothing we can compare, no normal. It's just a wild guess at what the future will bring. The catastrophic prophesies have been made since the beginning of recorded history, as have many catastrophic events for which we survived just fine, can't save everybody, all the time. The IPCC doesn't firmly state much of anything, other than time is short, and we must cut CO2 emissions quickly. Everything else they state, is a 'could', 'may', 'can', or 'might', which doesn't mean any of it has any value or meaning, non-committal. The more I've read into the 'research', the more I find that they are only using bits and pieces. A lot of stuff, they could get in a lab, under very specific conditions, which would rarely, if ever, occur outside. Tiny bubbles trapped in ice, as evidence? No way of knowing if any layers partially melted, and refroze, or how many layers erased during long warm periods. Ice is permeable, gasses pass through. Weak evidence, at best, but used to clearly show CO2 levels thousands of years past. Tree growth rings... Lot of factors effect growth, not just temperature and CO2 levels, but was also used as proof positive, that the ice core data was spot on. The IPCC only seem to use the parts of research that grab your attention, get you excited, like any work of fiction, or scam. You have to take much on faith, no real way to check the facts they give, or how they came to that conclusion. From the methods, tone, and prophetic results, their actions are more closely compared to a doomsday cult. Basically you have to devote a lot of faith/trust, in what they are say, and then we all can be saved. Science is the study of an observation, there are branches that cover pretty much everything. What sort of science is the IPCC master of, psychology, sociology, politics, marketing, religion?
26-01-2019 23:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Night, you can define things any way you like and you can keep coming up with clever linguistic hacks, but all you're doing is bogging down discussion in a hopeless mess, which is I assume serving your purpose. You're not convincing anyone of your position. There are free-market solutions, we need to divorce this scientific issue from the politics right now. There is no time. There is no problem. littleendian wrote: You simply decide that anyone working on climate change is not a scientist, no matter their credentials or professional background. Because there is no science in 'climate change' (whatever THAT is). You can't even DEFINE 'climate change'. littleendian wrote: You can do that, but it's the same as living in a dream world of your own creation. Inversion fallacy. Global Warming is YOUR religion, not mine. littleendian wrote: Must be nice. Meanwhile the rest of us are stuck in a situation where people like yourself are blocking the necessary action to tackle an issue that is potentially catastrophic on a global scale. All because you don't want to grow up and face reality. Pascal's Wager fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 23:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. No, it isn't. Science isn't credentials, or any paper. It does not use consensus or peer review. It is not a journal or magazine. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-01-2019 23:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: I would detest that just like the next non-leftie guy. You ARE a leftie guy. You are attempting to justify the socialism and Marxism to control energy markets by dictat. Ah, thank you Night, our interaction was bugging me, but now I have closure. Nah. You still want to force your religion on others. littleendian wrote: You confuse me with your political enemy. Don't think so. You are a member of the Church of Global Warming. You ARE my political enemy. littleendian wrote: You confuse politics with science, you mix them up. Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem, not mine. littleendian wrote: And you hide behind all kinds of tricks to conceal that because you don't like the consequences of what science is telling us is likely. You deny science. Specifically, you deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. littleendian wrote: You're just like those lefties trying to use this for their agenda, except the other way around. Same game. I'm not the one trying to force dictats on the energy market. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 01:26
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. Masson-Delmotte is most certainly not a politician. Political appointees are politicians and not scientists. They perform like trained seals and that is precisely what they have been doing.
27-01-2019 22:27
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. Masson-Delmotte is most certainly not a politician. Political appointees are politicians and not scientists. They perform like trained seals and that is precisely what they have been doing. What do you base that allegation on? Edited on 27-01-2019 22:27
27-01-2019 22:35
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: You can do that, but it's the same as living in a dream world of your own creation. Inversion fallacy. Global Warming is YOUR religion, not mine. So anything that is not a "science" as you arbitrarily define it is a religion? I concede to you that absolute truth probably doesn't exist outside some really confined set of axioms and rules. But that doesn't mean all other believes are on the same levels as a dogmatic religion. We can make predictions based on observations, measurements, general principles, laws of physics etc. and this is not the same as religion, where the dogmatic believes are supported by nothing but a book and magic thinking. All "laws" of physics are in that sense only observations that have repeated themselves over and over again. Is the field of physics a religion to you, Night?
27-01-2019 22:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. Masson-Delmotte is most certainly not a politician. Political appointees are politicians and not scientists. They perform like trained seals and that is precisely what they have been doing. What do you base that allegation on? Political appointees are paid for by the one appointing them. If they don't perform like trained seals, they are fired. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 22:51
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. Masson-Delmotte is most certainly not a politician. Political appointees are politicians and not scientists. They perform like trained seals and that is precisely what they have been doing. What do you base that allegation on? Political appointees are paid for by the one appointing them. If they don't perform like trained seals, they are fired. You assume that there is no higher motivation for people than money, which is questionable. Many people are also motivated by professional integrity, especially when they are in privileged positions where they don't depend on a single employer. These people are working at universities, they are not dependent on the UN. It would not take many people studying the climate to clearly show how the IPCC is forging the reports if it was happening. Where are those outcries from fellow scientists?
27-01-2019 22:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: You can do that, but it's the same as living in a dream world of your own creation. Inversion fallacy. Global Warming is YOUR religion, not mine. So anything that is not a "science" as you arbitrarily define it is a religion? Nope. I have already told you what a religion is. A religion is some initial circular argument with arguments extending from it. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. littleendian wrote: I concede to you that absolute truth probably doesn't exist outside some really confined set of axioms and rules. Define 'absolute truth'. Buzzword fallacy. littleendian wrote: But that doesn't mean all other believes are on the same levels as a dogmatic religion. If you believe in a circular argument as True, and that circular argument has extending arguments from it, it is the same level as any dogmatic religion. While a circular argument in and of itself is not a fallacy, attempting to prove one IS a fallacy, known as the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. littleendian wrote: We can make predictions based on observations, WRONG. Observations are not a proof, nor are capable of prediction. They simply are. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only, not a proof. littleendian wrote: measurements, A measurement is an observation. littleendian wrote: general principles, I assume you mean the theories themselves. They are not capable of prediction. They must be formalized into something like mathematics to gain that power. You deny these theories anyway. littleendian wrote: laws of physics etc. You deny physics, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny probability and statistical mathematics. littleendian wrote: and this is not the same as religion, I have described what religion is AGAIN to you, right here in this post. The Church of Global Warming IS a religion. It is a fundamentalist style religion. littleendian wrote: where the dogmatic believes are supported by nothing but a book and magic thinking. That is exactly what you are doing. littleendian wrote: All "laws" of physics are in that sense only observations WRONG. Theories of science are theories, not observations. Their formalized form are equations, not observations. littleendian wrote: that have repeated themselves over and over again. WRONG. Theories of science are falsifiable. They can be destroyed by falsification. Any theory may be destroyed at any time that way. No theory is ever proven in science. Supporting evidence is not used in science. littleendian wrote: Is the field of physics a religion to you, Night? No. It is a subset of science, most often called a 'branch' of science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 22:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. Masson-Delmotte is most certainly not a politician. Political appointees are politicians and not scientists. They perform like trained seals and that is precisely what they have been doing. What do you base that allegation on? Political appointees are paid for by the one appointing them. If they don't perform like trained seals, they are fired. You assume that there is no higher motivation for people than money, which is questionable. People gotta eat. littleendian wrote: Many people are also motivated by professional integrity, That doesn't buy a sandwich. littleendian wrote: especially when they are in privileged positions There is nothing privileged about a scientist. Don't elevate them to priests or gods. littleendian wrote: where they don't depend on a single employer. They DO. That employer is the government. littleendian wrote: These people are working at universities, Universities are government, dude. littleendian wrote: they are not dependent on the UN. The U.N. is government, dude. littleendian wrote: It would not take many people studying the climate Science has no theories about what is not quantifiable. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Something unquantifiable is not falsifiable. littleendian wrote: to clearly show how the IPCC is forging the reports if it was happening. Shifting the burden of proof again. littleendian wrote: Where are those outcries from fellow scientists? Largely suppressed by the employer, the government. Independently funded scientists HAVE been making outcries. Some of them have started their own blogs. Others have signed petitions. I suggest you Google for them. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 23:01
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Those laws about energy and radiance don't stand in conflict with the idea that global average temperatures could be rising as suggested by the rising global average temperature estimates based on measurements.
27-01-2019 23:04
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Quick, Night, you'll need to become more convincing, you are losing against the "religion" of climate change! https://science.slashdot.org/story/19/01/23/215229/record-number-of-americans-see-climate-change-as-a-current-threat
27-01-2019 23:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Those laws about energy and radiance don't stand in conflict with the idea that global average temperatures could be rising They stand in conflict with the 'greenhouse' gas concept. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using light emitted from the surface. littleendian wrote: as suggested by the rising global average temperature estimates based on measurements. Math error. Attempt to conflate statistical and probability mathematics. Failure to provide raw data. Failure to declare variance sources. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to eliminate sources of bias. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

27-01-2019 23:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	littleendian wrote: Quick, Night, you'll need to become more convincing, you are losing against the "religion" of climate change! ...deleted Holy Link... False authority fallacy. Slashdot is not an authoritative source. Polls are meaningless. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-01-2019 23:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	littleendian wrote: Into the Night wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Working Group I: Assesses scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change. Co-Chairs: Valérie Masson-Delmotte and Panmao Zhai (Both of whom are Directors in their home countries and not working scientists - political appointees whose past work gives them credentials) Okay, we can now start bickering about the definition of "scientist", but you will have to concede that someone holding a PhD and having published multiple papers in peer reviewed journals is a very good start. Masson-Delmotte is most certainly not a politician. Political appointees are politicians and not scientists. They perform like trained seals and that is precisely what they have been doing. What do you base that allegation on? Political appointees are paid for by the one appointing them. If they don't perform like trained seals, they are fired. You assume that there is no higher motivation for people than money, which is questionable. Many people are also motivated by professional integrity, especially when they are in privileged positions where they don't depend on a single employer. These people are working at universities, they are not dependent on the UN. It would not take many people studying the climate to clearly show how the IPCC is forging the reports if it was happening. Where are those outcries from fellow scientists? Universities run primarily off grants and endowments, they aren't going to rock the boat. Tuitions keep rising, because those cash 'gifts' aren't easy to get or keep coming. The staff at the Universities, enjoy the use of the lab facilities and equipment, often for their own projects. They have an almost unlimited, an unpaid staff (students). Research costs money, they need to produce something of interest, to those throwing money at the Universities, to keep their jobs, and privileges. Outside of a University, it's hard to do research, expensive, and you still need financial backers, who will still be expecting some specific results, only they aren't as tolerant of side work. Many have a personal opinion, but chose to keep out of the controversy. It's just like arguing the existence of GOD, and goes no where quick, but it does alter your employability. Global Warming do to man-made CO2 can't be proven or disproven, just like GOD. The vast majority of information supporting Global Warming, is computer generated(simulated models), or like-minded individuals agreeing (consensus) on scenarios. They only way to actually get the desired results. Politics are a dirty business these days. How many people get destroyed every year, or very close? Ever watch any of the campaigns during election years? The confirmation process for appointed positions? Al Gore narrowly lost to G.W. Bush, but hasn't run for anything since. It wasn't his defeat, but how he embarrassed himself dealing with it. Science has become a little like that as well. A 'paper' is a summary of your observation, your interpretation of what you observed, and what you did to test, and lastly your conclusion. Any other scientist is free to pick up that paper, and use any portion of it, draw their own conclusions, they just need to add a footnote at the bottom, were they got any portion they used. Once published, it's public domain, you don't own any rights to it, or how it's used/misused. Basically, if you complain about it, you are complaining about the whole process, you didn't get what you wanted, just like Al Gore.
28-01-2019 01:19
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Those laws about energy and radiance don't stand in conflict with the idea that global average temperatures could be rising as suggested by the rising global average temperature estimates based on measurements. Please tell us if you believe that we should have maintained the temperatures of the 1700's to mid-1800's forever? If so, why? And if not, why not? Do you think that man had anything to so with the Greek Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period? All of those were much warmer than today. That being the case and the weather satellite records showing no discernable heating since the launching of these satellites in 1978 what makes you believe that any of the NASA theories should be trusted for anything? Now that we have actual emails between Dr. Michael Mann and his associates saying "We have to lose the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age" ostensibly because if they remained in their data set that anyone could look at it and see that there was no climate change occurring what gives you the idea that anyone anywhere has ever even begun to prove one single thing about this scam?
28-01-2019 06:05
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	Wake wrote: littleendian wrote: 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann Those laws about energy and radiance don't stand in conflict with the idea that global average temperatures could be rising as suggested by the rising global average temperature estimates based on measurements. Please tell us if you believe that we should have maintained the temperatures of the 1700's to mid-1800's forever? If so, why? And if not, why not? That is an argument to be had once we agree that ACC is happening. I would say that a good start would be to keep the CO2 concentration close to those levels for which the ecosystem evolved, somewhere around 300-350 ppm. Wake wrote: Do you think that man had anything to so with the Greek Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period? All of those were much warmer than today. Possibly. One of the first things man did after discovering fire was to burn down vast quantities of forest. Wake wrote: That being the case and the weather satellite records showing no discernable heating since the launching of these satellites in 1978 what makes you believe that any of the NASA theories should be trusted for anything? I'm telling you the scientific consensus is that the temperature is rising. There will always be one-off studies that indicate something else, that is the process of science trying to find the truth. Related article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/11/more-errors-identified-in-contrarian-climate-scientists-temperature-estimates Wake wrote: Now that we have actual emails between Dr. Michael Mann and his associates saying "We have to lose the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age" ostensibly because if they remained in their data set that anyone could look at it and see that there was no climate change occurring what gives you the idea that anyone anywhere has ever even begun to prove one single thing about this scam? Please provide a link to the email exchange you're referring to. The released emails of climate scientists have been analyzed and from my understanding there was no reason to suspect foul play.
28-01-2019 07:33
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	littleendian wrote: Wake wrote: Do you think that man had anything to so with the Greek Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warm Period? All of those were much warmer than today. Possibly. One of the first things man did after discovering fire was to burn down vast quantities of forest. That said, I'm not denying natural climate variability. However it is incorrect to say that the Medieval Warm Period was "much warmer than today", the temperature anomaly back then was approximately what we have seen up until now, something like +1 degree C relative to pre-industrial. However, we are currently accelerating (and banking in) a further temperature increase in the 21st century of potentially 4 or more degrees C through CO2 emissions and the question is: Is that such a wise thing to do?
28-01-2019 07:38
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	HarveyH55 wrote: [...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...] Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change. Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials. Edited on 28-01-2019 07:38
28-01-2019 11:01
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: [...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...] Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change. Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials. I've never seen any such big oil research, though I have no doubt there soom and it's probably propaganda, much like the IPCC. I don't think they really need to work too hard in that direction, since it's a non-issue. As a business, they are probably looking into ways to get a piece of the action, while it lasts. They also have their hands full, dealing with the political pressures, and bogus lawsuits. There is no alternative energy scheme yet, that can come even close to fossil fuels. The green, renewable energy competition is expensive, and low yield, takes up a lot of land, much less convenient and efficient. They are probably just going to sit it out, and wait for people to start looking at the price tag, and actually reading the IPCC reports. The IPCC reports lack conviction, full of predictions (almost never happen), the words; could, may, can, could, might... Aren't strong selling words, tell me they aren't so sure, it's just safer to plan for the worst we can possibly imagine (scenarios).
28-01-2019 18:15
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: [...about the motivation and monetary interests of scientists...] Those might be real pressures on scientists, yes. However: There are also very strong financial interests behind showing that carbon emissions are not an issue and can continue unchecked. Those groups like the fossil fuel industry do have the ressources to fund research that would disprove anthropogenic climate change. Show me such research that stands the test of peer reviews and wouldn't just be laughed off the stage of any audience with respectable credentials. That is an extremely strange idea. There is NO alternative to fossil fuel so can you explain why oil or coal companies would have to spend time and money to promote the use of the only practical source of power? Solar power plants do not even break even. There is a tiny gain with wind power at the cost of rather massive environmental damage. Russia is the only country smart enough to put nuclear materials away because they know that rather than heat we have another very cold spell coming on. I have presented an analysis of atmospheric CO2 here and that the claims of there having been not more than 350 ppm over the last 120,000 years is pure unadulterated BS. Just as CO2 moves freely through water it moves almost as freely through ICE. So the ice core research measuring atmospheric CO2 over time is not an accurate depiction. The plant stomata research shows that CO2 was a great deal higher than the Ice Core research has shown and atmospheric levels change a great deal faster than most other research has shown. I have since written to those researchers of plant stomata a bit of reasoning that would show that in the rather recent past that CO2 was a great deal higher than their research shows. Fossilized plants that can be studied come from areas that were heavily forested. These are the only areas in which leaves etc. can build up more rapidly than they decay. So the leaves show less CO2 in the atmosphere by having a larger amount of stomata than the levels of CO2 would warrant because of competition for the available food sources in the heavy forest. A possible source for measuring historic levels of CO2 would be knowing at what levels forest dies off and grasslands take over. You can then simply dig up old stumps and using Carbon 14 dating you could see at what point they began dying off. The great plains and the African savanna are not grass lands because God created them as such. They were heavily forested as the Ice retreated and at some point the forests reduced atmospheric levels of CO2 until such point that it could not support the rather poor efficiency of trees rather than grass.
28-01-2019 18:29
littleendian ★☆☆☆☆ (53)	There are many possible explanations for why ice cores could still be a relevant measurement of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations even if the ice is permeable to CO2. It is so a couple of million times less than liquid water, so there is a good chance the CO2 concentration in the ice could still be useful. I'm not having these discussions anymore since I don't share your paranoia regarding the scientific community. Edited on 28-01-2019 18:29
28-01-2019 18:44
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	littleendian wrote: There are many possible explanations for why ice cores could still be a relevant measurement of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations even if the ice is permeable to CO2. It is so a couple of million times less than liquid water, so there is a good chance the CO2 concentration in the ice could still be useful. I'm not having these discussions anymore since I don't share your paranoia regarding the scientific community. I actually work in the scientific community, have you? On several occasions I have been nearly killed because the scientific community often has no idea what the hell they're talking about. What experiences do you have? This is a challenge and not an insult.

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate Why the mistrust of the IPCC?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
IPCC AR 6	15	22-08-2021 19:26
uniting nations - IPCC TABLES	13	14-03-2020 07:20
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o	2	03-03-2020 02:17
Burning Trees (carbon neutral) and the IPCC	3	14-01-2020 21:44
Early IPCC Reports	9	08-07-2019 07:48