Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Riiiiiight...."Scientists" hand picked by politicians aren't going to give their benefactors exactly the results that they want to get.Obviously, the UN is a political organization and when the IPCC was first formed, its members were hand-selected by their governments. But the idea that all those governments had the same aims is ludicrous. What they did have in common was a fairly strong desire not to rock the boat. The first two IPCC assessment reports were made more conservative by political influences. That is, the science supported more alarm than the politicians wanted to publish.
However, the world was getting data from other places as well. The IPCC funds NO science. Everything they use is science published on its own right in the normal science publications. Through those normal channels, the world began to assimilate the idea that man-made global warming was more dangerous than the IPCC was telling them. This empowered the scientists working for the UN and political biases towards threat minimization almost disappeared.
The paranoid fantasies that we see from deniers here; that the IPCC wants to take over the world or destroy the world or whatever nonsense they are spouting today is patently absurd. You will frequently see people chastizing the critical thinking of their opponents here. If you, yourself wish to be critical in your evaluations of these various claims, your first step ought to be to eliminate those claims that do not pass a simple sanity check. That every single man-jack of the thousands of the world's climate scientists is involved in a perfectly secure, perfectly functioning, decades long conspiracy to deceive the public in order to... who knows, does NOT pass a simple sanity check. That the IPCC has some political motivation that drives all their work is just another variation of the same failed nonsense.
Wanna buy some seaside property in Arizona?
The IPCC has been in existence now for almost 31 years. Very few of the original employees are still there and the point of my comment is that governments now put less pressure on scientists than they did and that when they did, their aim was to MINIMIZE the threat the IPCC conclusions saw in global warming. These refute your contentions.
Amount of time in existence is proof of nothing....A red herring.Red herrings? Where do you see a red herring?
You and others have claimed that the IPCC is driven by political considerations. I am stating that is no longer the case. Where do you see a red herring Mr Linguist?
The "intergovernmental" part gives it away as being purely political, not scientific.
What's given away is that your are a naive rube.....A perfect mark for hustlers and scammers everywhere.Amount of time in existence is proof of nothing....A red herring.Red herrings? Where do you see a red herring?
You and others have claimed that the IPCC is driven by political considerations. I am stating that is no longer the case. Where do you see a red herring Mr Linguist?
The "intergovernmental" part gives it away as being purely political, not scientific.
I think what is given away here is that you're not the expert you've claimed to be.
your are a naive rube.....A perfect mark for hustlers and scammers everywhere.
your are a naive rube.....A perfect mark for hustlers and scammers everywhere.
You are truly a master of words.
your are a naive rube.....A perfect mark for hustlers and scammers everywhere.
You are truly a master of words.
I notice you recently been avoiding my replies to you, a brooding master of the loss of words?
Here is the latest one you ignored.
Post 214
Just fuck off, OK....Appeal to authority is your only argument....One I'm no longer going to suffer.mired in "yeah but the experts say...."
"The experts don't agree with me. A minor detail."
Just fuck off, OK....Appeal to authority is your only argument....One I'm no longer going to suffer.mired in "yeah but the experts say...."
"The experts don't agree with me. A minor detail."
You "suffer" appeals to authority all the time. And as an expert like you would know, it is perfectly valid in a case such as the massive majority opinion of almost every single climate scientist on the planet.
Oddball,
I'm wondering why an expert such as yourself would criticize someone for using what you HAVE to know was a perfectly valid argument. So... uh... why?
Opinion isn't science.....But you already knew that, didn't you?Just fuck off, OK....Appeal to authority is your only argument....One I'm no longer going to suffer.mired in "yeah but the experts say...."
"The experts don't agree with me. A minor detail."
You "suffer" appeals to authority all the time. And as an expert like you would know, it is perfectly valid in a case such as the massive majority opinion of almost every single climate scientist on the planet.
Oddball,
I'm wondering why an expert such as yourself would criticize someone for using what you HAVE to know was a perfectly valid argument. So... uh... why?
Obviously, >97% of the world's climate scientists represent a genuine authority on AGW, the topic under discussion. So, how can you criticize someone for using "Appeal to Authority" improperly?
your are a naive rube.....A perfect mark for hustlers and scammers everywhere.
You are truly a master of words.
I notice you recently been avoiding my replies to you, a brooding master of the loss of words?
Here is the latest one you ignored.
Post 214
By his own admission, he doesn't know anything at all about the science, or the evidence...he operates on the presumption that climate scientists are the smartest, most honorable, altruistic people on the face of the earth.
His belief in climate scientists borders on the fervent belief often placed in religious beliefs, and especially on the leaders of cults . He is quick to denigrate anyone who questions what climate scientists have to say, or dares point out the stark lack of evidence to support the claims being made. He suggested that because I question climate science, I must be an anti science, religious fundamentalist redneck. When I questioned if he is prejudiced against people of faith, he acknowledged that he sometimes is...completely failing to see that his own position is indistinguishable from the most fervent believers in the various religions. It would be interesting to have a long conversation with him about the nature of that prejudice...is it the fact that they believe (which would be terribly ironic) or what they believe?
Oh yes, and apparently climate scientists possess some esoteric knowledge that you can only get if you are a climate scientist...because only a climate scientist can know what the literature says, what it demonstrates, how it was gathered, what its source is, what methods were used to evaluate the data, and what it means. Quite a claim for a soft science, but there it is.
Another qualification: published papers.Bullshit.
James Powell, in a 2017 study found better than 99% of science papers published between 1991 and 2015 supported AGW. How many of those papers, the newest of which were 2 years old at the time of the study, do you think had been retracted?
More evidence that the AGW fundies are blowing environmentally unfriendly smoke: preposterous claims...BTW, that 97% myth was debunked before lunchtime on the day it was released.Oddball,
I'm wondering why an expert such as yourself would criticize someone for using what you HAVE to know was a perfectly valid argument. So... uh... why?
Obviously, >97% of the world's climate scientists represent a genuine authority on AGW, the topic under discussion. So, how can you criticize someone for using "Appeal to Authority" improperly?
More evidence that the AGW fundies are blowing environmentally unfriendly smoke: preposterous claims...BTW, that 97% myth was debunked before lunchtime on the day it was released.Oddball,
I'm wondering why an expert such as yourself would criticize someone for using what you HAVE to know was a perfectly valid argument. So... uh... why?
Obviously, >97% of the world's climate scientists represent a genuine authority on AGW, the topic under discussion. So, how can you criticize someone for using "Appeal to Authority" improperly?
Popular Technology.net: 97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"
