Turns out the Aztec Astronomer/Priests were Alarmists Also

[Crick]

In the democracies of the western world, how has the work of the IPCC repressed the political will of populations or kept anyone in power?

This is a good question that has not been answered.

 

[ding]

This is a good question that has not been answered.

The same way other "bell cow" issues (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, gun control) have. It's a political rallying cry which incites the masses (on both sides of an issue) for the express purpose of mobilizing the vote. The fact that the IPCC does not allow dissenting opinions tells you which "herd" they are trying to incite and mobilize to vote.

 

[Crick]

The same way other "bell cow" issues (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, gun control) have. It's a political rallying cry which incites the masses (on both sides of an issue) for the express purpose of mobilizing the vote. The fact that the IPCC does not allow dissenting opinions tells you which "herd" they are trying to incite and mobilize to vote.

Did you perhaps mean "cow bell"? You know I don't talk to you much any more, but its a quiet morning.

The question was "In the democracies of the western world, how has the work of the IPCC repressed the political will of populations or kept anyone in power?"

A political rallying cry, particularly one you say incites the masses and mobilizes the vote on both sides of the issue, does not repress the political will of the population nor keep anyone in power. So, try again please.

The IPCC does not repress dissenting opinions. They resolve them. When there are unresolvable opinions, they explain that in the text of their reports. Before you continue to make yourself look really stupid, please look at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR6_WGI_SOD_Guidance_Note.pdf and https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/...6_WGII_FOD_CommentsResponses_EntireReport.pdf

 

[ding]

Did you perhaps mean "cow bell"?

No, the "bell cow" is the lead cow of the herd. The political issues are the "bell cow" which leads the herd. Both sides have them.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Did you perhaps mean "cow bell"? You know I don't talk to you much any more, but its a quiet morning.

The question was "In the democracies of the western world, how has the work of the IPCC repressed the political will of populations or kept anyone in power?"

A political rallying cry, particularly one you say incites the masses and mobilizes the vote on both sides of the issue, does not repress the political will of the population nor keep anyone in power. So, try again please.

The IPCC does not repress dissenting opinions. They resolve them. When there are unresolvable opinions, they explain that in the text of their reports. Before you continue to make yourself look really stupid, please look at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/...6_WGII_FOD_CommentsResponses_EntireReport.pdf

In other words, you had your question answered once again, but you don't like the answer.

Political rally cries, such as "The oil companies are destroying the planet!" or "Orange Man Bad" do keep politicians in power. Politicians pay for this, often through taxes taken from the people who are asked ot sacrifice due to "global warming" in ways the politicians consistently refuse to do.

 

[ding]

The question was "In the democracies of the western world, how has the work of the IPCC repressed the political will of populations or kept anyone in power?"

That certainly is the intent of a "bell cow" political issue. It doesn't have to result in a particular side winning. As each side has a "bell cow." So one will win and one will lose. That doesn't negate the fact that each side used the issue to incite their base and rally their base.

So, yeah, I think the IPCC has because they don't allow dissenting opinions in their reports.

 

[ding]

A political rallying cry, particularly one you say incites the masses and mobilizes the vote on both sides of the issue, does not repress the political will of the population nor keep anyone in power. So, try again please.

Good Lord, you are dense. Yes, I already acknowledged each side has a "bell cow" for each politically controversial issue.

Each side is trying to repress the other side and each side is using that to stay in power, dummy, so, yeah, it does mean that.

 

[ding]

The IPCC does not repress dissenting opinions. They resolve them. When there are unresolvable opinions, they explain that in the text of their reports.

That's not how dissenting opinions are presented. Read a SCOTUS ruling. The winning side doesn't get to write the dissenting opinion and explain why it lost. Each side presents its own case. If you can't understand why that is, let me start writing your posts for you and I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out then.

 

[Crick]

That's not how dissenting opinions are presented. Read a SCOTUS ruling. The winning side doesn't get to write the dissenting opinion and explain why it lost. Each side presents its own case. If you can't understand why that is, let me start writing your posts for you and I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out then.

The first document I gave you is the standing instructions for the IPCC 's handling of a variety of opinions. It is not the dictation of the "winning side".

 

[ding]

The first document I gave you is the standing instructions for the IPCC 's handling of a variety of opinions. It is not the dictation of the "winning side".

Don't care. They don't allow the dissenting opinions to be written by the scientists who are dissenting. They are explaining why the dissenting opinions don't matter. If you can't understand the difference, I can't help you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is true that AGW alarmists have not gotten to the level of power to be able to conduct human sacrifices to the weather gods in the public square . . . yet.

As of now, they are competing in the marketplace of ideas. Like most socialists, they are about trying to rig the competition so that their side has a chance to prevail, no matter how weak.

They are censoring opposing views whenever they can gain influence over the media through which they express those views. They are pushing for regulations forcing producers to adopt measures to alleviate their fears, regardless of how unreasonable and delusional those fears are, and they are pushing for ever higher taxes to fund measures that they carefully avoid describing to us as to costs and predicted results.

Have they "repressed political will, and kept people in power?" Only as one of many issues on which disagreement always seems to be among people who want greater or lesser government controls over the population.

 

[Crick]

Good Lord, you are dense. Yes, I already acknowledged each side has a "bell cow" for each politically controversial issue.

I had to look through half a dozen definitions of bell cow that all simply described a cow wearing a bell till I found one that also suggested "influencer". So, who or what is the "bell cow" for those who oppose the work of the IPCC? If you can't come up with one, I have a suggestion.

Each side is trying to repress the other side and each side is using that to stay in power, dummy, so, yeah, it does mean that.

The original charge was that the work of the IPCC was suppressing the will of the people and keeping select politicians in power. That one political party might favor the work of the IPCC and another might disfavor it, does not show that the work of the IPCC, on its own, does anything at all. And the whole idea that educating the masses is a bad thing - which is what you've been saying here all along - is not a great position to attempt to defend.

Note that no one else here has joined you.

 

[ding]

I had to look through half a dozen definitions of bell cow that all simply described a cow wearing a bell till I found one that also suggested "influencer". So, who or what is the "bell cow" for those who oppose the work of the IPCC? If you can't come up with one, I have a suggestion.

You are like a dog with a bone.

Definition of BELL COW

a cow with a bell attached to its neck; especially : a lead cow; leader… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

bell cow​

noun​

1
: a cow with a bell attached to its neck
especially : a lead cow

2
slang : LEADER
the bell cow in county politics—James Street & J. S. Childers

 

[ding]

So, who or what is the "bell cow" for those who oppose the work of the IPCC? If you can't come up with one, I have a suggestion.

I'm sure you do. The bell cow for those who DISAGREE with the modelling of the IPCC is the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record. But since you can't attack that, you generate an imaginary straw man (i.e. oil companies).

 

[ding]

The original charge was that the work of the IPCC was suppressing the will of the people and keeping select politicians in power. That one political party might favor the work of the IPCC and another might disfavor it, does not show that the work of the IPCC, on its own, does anything at all. And the whole idea that educating the masses is a bad thing - which is what you've been saying here all along - is not a great position to attempt to defend.

Note that no one else here has joined you.

I don't care if anyone joins me. No one is joining you. Does that change your opinion?

I've already answered this and explained it in posts #46, 47, 48 and 50. What good would it do for me to do it again?

 

[Crick]

I'm sure you do. The bell cow for those who DISAGREE with the modelling of the IPCC is the empirical climate evidence of the geologic record. But since you can't attack that, you generate an imaginary straw man (i.e. oil companies).

I don't attack empirical evidence because there's nothing wrong with it. What I have repeatedly attacked, because it is absurdly flawed, is your interpretation as to what it is evidence for.

 

[ding]

I don't attack empirical evidence because there's nothing wrong with it. What I have repeatedly attacked, because it is absurdly flawed, is your interpretation as to what it is evidence for.

Please do tell me what you think my interpretation is.

 

[Crick]

Please do tell me what you think my interpretation is.

Not the interpretation of the world's climate scientists.

I've got to get a shower and walk the dog. So, TTFN.

 

[ding]

Not the interpretation of the world's climate scientists.

I've got to get a shower and walk the dog. So, TTFN.

That's a bullshit answer. You claim that my interpretation of the empirical climate data from the geologic record is "absurdly flawed." For you to make that conclusion you should be able to state what my interpretation of that data is and why it is "absurdly flawed."

I'm pretty sure I can state what your interpretation of the data is and why it is flawed.

 

[Crick]

That's a bullshit answer. You claim that my interpretation of the empirical climate data from the geologic record is "absurdly flawed." For you to make that conclusion you should be able to state what my interpretation of that data is and why it is "absurdly flawed."

I'm pretty sure I can state what your interpretation of the data is and why it is flawed.

I'd like to hear what you think I think.

As to yours, we've just been going over your never ending mantra "... we are still 2C cooler than previous interglacial periods with 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2" which you present as evidence that CO2 is not the cause of the observed, contemporary greenhouse warming.