Turns out the Aztec Astronomer/Priests were Alarmists Also

[ding]

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.

That's it? That's all you got? Your interpretation of the data may be that simplistic but mine isn't.

1. What about the planet being uniquely configured for colder temperatures?
2. What about the planet becoming bipolar glaciated?
3. What about the unique land mass configuration in the Arctic leading to more climate fluctuations?
4. What about heat circulation or lack of heat circulation to the Arctic from the Atlantic is what drives glacial periods and climate fluctuations?
5. What about solar variability leads to changes in wind patterns?
6. What about changes to wind patterns affect ocean circulation?
7. What about changes in salinity and density - which are temperature dependent - lead to changes in ocean circulation?
8. What about the threshold temperature for extensive continental glaciation in the Arctic?
9. What about the threshold temperature for extensive continental glaciation in the Antarctic?
10. What about the the effect the surrounding ocean has on glaciation in the Antarctic?
11. What about the the effect the surrounding land has on glaciation in the Arctic?
12. What about the threshold temperature of the Arctic being only 2C colder than today?
13. What about the heat circulation to the Arctic keeps it 2C warmer than it would be without it?
14. What about the feedback affect from glaciation in the northern hemisphere amplifying the loss of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic?
15. What about the plethora of papers on what would happen if heat circulation were disrupted to the Arctic?
16. What about the fact that the vast majority of heat is stored in the ocean and not the atmosphere?
17. What about the ocean is the largest feature on the planet?
18. What about the effect of ice on the poles?
19. What about the time it takes to warm back up from a glacial period to an interglacial period?
20. What about the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 levels 50% greater than today?

And that's just my top 20, you want 20 more?

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

Let me guess… The bad orange man??

The original charge was that the work of the IPCC was suppressing the will of the people and keeping select politicians in power.

No.

Reread the OP.

The original charge was that governments use the IPCC to stay in power. The IPCC relies on funding, and as such its mission is to do whatever it takes to keep that funding coming. That’s just Darwin as an action, not a comment on ethics.

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.

Correct. I never said it did.

The IPCC acts as gatekeepers for information about the climate, with a focus on “climate change.”

The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options. Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change.

So they act as editors, carefully feeding policy makers the information it wants policymakers to have, edited down from ongoing research.

Since they provide information about risks, adaptation, and mitigation, you should be able to consult them for answers to my questions that are stumping you.

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.

I didn’t see him say anything like that. Can you provide a quote and post number?

Note that no one else here has joined you.

ding does fine on his own. So do several other posters, who have come onto your thread and mine to express their disagreement with your extremely vague policies plans for which you insist I’ll be paying. It is you who are surprisingly alone, given how many progressive posters we have and how critical they supposedly think global warming is.

I have an idea of why global warming alarmist don’t want to join you. But like many of my ideas, it is worth a thread of its own, which I will be starting shortly.

 

[Crick]

Let me guess… The bad orange man??

No-o-o-ooo... Darren Woods.

No.

Reread the OP.

I wasn't referring to the OP.

The original charge was that governments use the IPCC to stay in power. The IPCC relies on funding, and as such its mission is to do whatever it takes to keep that funding coming. That’s just Darwin as an action, not a comment on ethics.

The United States is on its seventh president since the IPCC was created: four republican and three democratic.

Correct. I never said it did.

I wasn't talking to you. These comments were all made to Ding. You're butting in to a conversation to which you were never invited. Now, you're free to do so, but don't expect a guaranteed welcome. In RL, are you as self-centerd as you are here?

The IPCC acts as gatekeepers for information about the climate, with a focus on “climate change.”

No, they do not. All of their input is material previously published in peer reviewed journals.

The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options. Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change.

When you quote a publicly available document, it would be nice if you would put that text in quotes and identify its source before someone here gets the silly idea that you wrote that. Your comment comes from IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The paragraph in full reads

The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.​

Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. The assessment reports are a key input into the international negotiations to tackle climate change. Created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988, the IPCC has 195 Member countries. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

So they act as editors, carefully feeding policy makers the information it wants policymakers to have, edited down from ongoing research.

As the document you just quoted states: "The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive."

Since they provide information about risks, adaptation, and mitigation, you should be able to consult them for answers to my questions that are stumping you.

So should anyone. Even you.

I didn’t see him say anything like that. Can you provide a quote and post number?

Too subtle for you I guess. I was referring to his charge that the IPCC is a bell cow for one side of an argument and that the other side has its own bell cow(s) and that the result of their activities is - somehow - the suppression of the will of the voter

ding does fine on his own.

Keeping the bar flat on the ground serves no one.

So do several other posters, who have come onto your thread and mine to express their disagreement with your extremely vague policies plans for which you insist I’ll be paying.

I've never said I had policy plans. My insistence that you'll be paying for whatever the government decides to do comes from my assumption that you pay your taxes. Is that a valid assumption?

It is you who are surprisingly alone

I'm not alone. But I am a grown man and do not require my hand be held. There are several other posters here who accept mainstream science and do an excellent job arguing with deniers such as yourself, though, to be honest, it doesn't take much for any of us. Imagine a debate between people with some college science and flat earthers.

given how many progressive posters we have and how critical they supposedly think global warming is.

I think the liberal regulars on this forum are outnumbered by the conservative regulars her 4 or 5 to 1. Be that as it may, I have no difficulty holding off 4 or 5 of you at once.

I have an idea of why global warming alarmist don’t want to join you. But like many of my ideas, it is worth a thread of its own, which I will be starting shortly.

I look forward to ignoring it at least as much as I have ignored the rest of your self-centered and grossly misinformed blather.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No-o-o-ooo... Darren Woods.

Never heard of him.

I wasn't referring to the OP.

That's where "the original charge" would be.

Unless you are talking about something else besides this thread topic?

The United States is on its seventh president since the IPCC was created: four republican and three democratic.

Yes, and . . . ?

I wasn't talking to you. These comments were all made to Ding. You're butting in to a conversation to which you were never invited. Now, you're free to do so, but don't expect a guaranteed welcome. In RL, are you as self-centerd as you are here?

Moreso really. Here I don't really care.

IRL, I care about "me and mine," which includes my family, friends, and students. I move Heaven and Earth for them. In fact, when it comes to those I care about, Heaven and Earth have learned to get out of my way.**

It's a thread I started on a forum that is open to all, so I believe I am completely welcome. Maybe not by you, but you don't own the forum, so it isn't for you to welcome me or don't.

No, they do not. All of their input is material previously published in peer reviewed journals.

They are gatekeeper for those policy makers who choose the IPCC as their source of information. Also for non-policy makers, such as yourself. You are welcome to have your opinions, but you should be aware that if IPCC is your only source of information, they will shape that opinion.

When you quote a publicly available document, it would be nice if you would put that text in quotes and identify its source before someone here gets the silly idea that you wrote that. Your comment comes from IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The paragraph in full reads

The IPCC was created to provide policymakers with regular scientific assessments on climate change, its implications and potential future risks, as well as to put forward adaptation and mitigation options.​

Through its assessments, the IPCC determines the state of knowledge on climate change. It identifies where there is agreement in the scientific community on topics related to climate change, and where further research is needed. The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive. The assessment reports are a key input into the international negotiations to tackle climate change. Created by the United Nations Environment Programme (UN Environment) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988, the IPCC has 195 Member countries. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC.

Yes, it was obvious where it came from. You had no trouble finding it.

As the document you just quoted states: "The reports are drafted and reviewed in several stages, thus guaranteeing objectivity and transparency. The IPCC does not conduct its own research. IPCC reports are neutral, policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive."

Clearly, they are not objective and transparent, and neither are the researchers whose articles they promote.

So should anyone. Even you.

Except, I am not trying to convince anyone that massive amounts of money must be spent for a vague problem with vague solutions. You can ask me whatever you want, and I will almost always answer. But since I'm not asking you to pony up money, or do anything in particuluar I have no obligation to answer.

Just as you have no obligation to do what I ask of you - which is absolutely nothing.

Too subtle for you I guess. I was referring to his charge that the IPCC is a bell cow for one side of an argument and that the other side has its own bell cow(s) and that the result of their activities is - somehow - the suppression of the will of the voter

What in the world does that have to do with opposing education?

Keeping the bar flat on the ground serves no one.

Yes, and it makes it difficult to draw a pint.

Another metaphor?

I've never said I had policy plans. My insistence that you'll be paying for whatever the government decides to do comes from my assumption that you pay your taxes. Is that a valid assumption?

If you have no policy plans, nor support any particular policy . . . what is your point? Will you be happy if government does nothing about Global Warming, and therefore does not tax me to pay for it?

I'm not alone. But I am a grown man and do not require my hand be held. There are several other posters here who accept mainstream science and do an excellent job arguing with deniers such as yourself, though, to be honest, it doesn't take much for any of us. Imagine a debate between people with some college science and flat earthers.

You imagine that. I need not imagine what I see with my own eyes: A movement that is great at getting ideas across so long as other ideas are carefully censored, as they are in the mainstream media. However, the adherents of that movement never do well in a debate in which they are not able to talk over and shout down their opponents. So they fall back on "you're stoopid," or other silly arguments. Instead of explaining their stance, they accuse those who disagree of not understanding science.

They constantly fall back on argument from authority. They seem not to understand that this is a recognized fallacy. Perhaps they are not well-educated enough to know that.

I think the liberal regulars on this forum are outnumbered by the conservative regulars her 4 or 5 to 1. Be that as it may, I have no difficulty holding off 4 or 5 of you at once.

I'll give you that. It takes tenacity to go against the stream. Especially when you are without a paddle.*

I look forward to ignoring it at least as much as I have ignored the rest of your self-centered and grossly misinformed blather.

I doubt you'll be able to stay off, given the above mentioned tenacity, but we'll see.

*I'll explain that metaphor rather than huffily claim you are stoopid to not get it immediately. The metaphorical stream refers to the fact that most posters in the environmental forum oppose the nonsensical ideas of the Global Warming Alarmist Movement. The lack of a metaphorical paddle refers to the fact that you admittedly have no policy ideas to recommend, but you love to insult people who disagree with those policy ideas that you do not set forth and support.

**I hope that metaphor was clear, if not feel free to ask.

 

[Crick]

That's it? That's all you got? Your interpretation of the data may be that simplistic but mine isn't.

1. What about the planet being uniquely configured for colder temperatures?
2. What about the planet becoming bipolar glaciated?
3. What about the unique land mass configuration in the Arctic leading to more climate fluctuations?
4. What about heat circulation or lack of heat circulation to the Arctic from the Atlantic is what drives glacial periods and climate fluctuations?
5. What about solar variability leads to changes in wind patterns?
6. What about changes to wind patterns affect ocean circulation?
7. What about changes in salinity and density - which are temperature dependent - lead to changes in ocean circulation?
8. What about the threshold temperature for extensive continental glaciation in the Arctic?
9. What about the threshold temperature for extensive continental glaciation in the Antarctic?
10. What about the the effect the surrounding ocean has on glaciation in the Antarctic?
11. What about the the effect the surrounding land has on glaciation in the Arctic?
12. What about the threshold temperature of the Arctic being only 2C colder than today?
13. What about the heat circulation to the Arctic keeps it 2C warmer than it would be without it?
14. What about the feedback affect from glaciation in the northern hemisphere amplifying the loss of heat circulation from the Atlantic to the Arctic?
15. What about the plethora of papers on what would happen if heat circulation were disrupted to the Arctic?
16. What about the fact that the vast majority of heat is stored in the ocean and not the atmosphere?
17. What about the ocean is the largest feature on the planet?
18. What about the effect of ice on the poles?
19. What about the time it takes to warm back up from a glacial period to an interglacial period?
20. What about the planet cooling for millions of years with atmospheric CO2 levels 50% greater than today?

And that's just my top 20, you want 20 more?

That wasn't all I had. It was all you had. None of this crap bears on the integrity and validity of the IPCC. All it involves is your ego.

 

[Crick]

Never heard of him.

Then you should have looked him up. He has a great deal more to do with this issue than the lying idiot Donald Trump

That's where "the original charge" would be.

I don't give a shit.

Unless you are talking about something else besides this thread topic?

Oh god fucking no!!! Bailiff, whack his pee pee.

Yes, and . . . ?

If the purpose of the IPCC is to keep politicans in power, it isn't doing a very good job. Why do I have to explain all this shit to you? How about from now on if I think you're just pretending to be stupid, I won't bother answering your questions.

Moreso really. Here I don't really care.

Than get fucked.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Then you should have looked him up. He has a great deal more to do with this issue than the lying idiot Donald Trump

That isn't how it works. You really think that you can say a name and other posters are supposed to run to research that name? Is that what you do if I throw out a name?

If you want me to know about that guy, you tell me about him. If I doubt what you say, then I can look him up. Why is he important to the issue of implimenting policy to address man-caused global warming?

I don't give a shit.

I know. You don't give a shit about being accurate, about meaning what you say, or meaning anything at all. You are just about the most intellectually dishonest poster I've ever seen. The only one more dishonest was one whose schtick was to get a debate going and then deliberately change positions and pretend that the person he was posting with had argued his original position.

But you are about as dishonest as a poster could be without making it plain that it is a prank.

Oh god fucking no!!! Bailiff, whack his pee pee.

You're a weird old dude.

If the purpose of the IPCC is to keep politicans in power, it isn't doing a very good job.

How so? You just stated that the Democrats and Republicans have controlled the White House since its inception. You think they are these diametrically opposed people who are constantly battling it out for control of America? Look at the Senate's bi-Partisan border bill. Look at how they enable each other's wars. Look at how little the Repubs do to change Democrat policy after being elected on opposing it.

They are peas in a pod.

Don't get me wrong, the IPCC is not the only ones keeping them in power, nor are they the most important. Not by far. The world is much bigger than in the Aztec days, so no one group has the kind of power to enable government power that the Aztec Priests did. But IPCC is a cog in the wheel (metaphorically) that keeps governments in power.

That's why governments pay them.

Why do I have to explain all this shit to you? How about from now on if I think you're just pretending to be stupid, I won't bother answering your questions.

You almost never answer questions. You don't have to explain or answer. But when you don't answer questions about your own positions, it tell me that you know how weak they are.

I know mine are strong, so I can answer your questions. Hint: They are all questions I asked myself before settling on a position, so I'm ready for them.

Than get fucked.

Grow up, old guy.

 

[ding]

That wasn't all I had. It was all you had. None of this crap bears on the integrity and validity of the IPCC. All it involves is your ego.

Items 1 through 20 say otherwise. It's relevance is it challenges their conclusion and demonstrates there is no climate discussion from the IPCC. Just flawed model results.

You want another 20?