• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judith Curry's Victory

I would be happy with groups who would do honest research without a preconceived agenda of what conclusion they intend to reach.

Hmm. Maybe convening all the experts who study the issue together in a worldwide forum and they can carefully review all the published evidence and write a detailed report, carefully peer reviewing it for accuracy?

And maybe they could do this periodically, issuing reports every five years or so?

And of course, to assure its honest and does not have a 'preconcieved agenda', we can check what other highly respected scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society, as well as the American Geophysical Union, and other societies representing Physics, Chemistry and Meteorology say.

I think that would be a great idea.
 
Hmm. Maybe convening all the experts who study the issue together in a worldwide forum and they can carefully review all the published evidence and write a detailed report, carefully peer reviewing it for accuracy?

And maybe they could do this periodically, issuing reports every five years or so?

And of course, to assure its honest and does not have a 'preconcieved agenda', we can check what other highly respected scientific organizations, such as the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society, as well as the American Geophysical Union, and other societies representing Physics, Chemistry and Meteorology say.

I think that would be a great idea.
You are free to suggest that the IPCC is unbiased, to which I will counter with, the opening paragraph from
the History of the IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies
Second would come the question of why they thought they needed "realistic response strategies", if they were still assessing if a problem existed?
 
You are free to suggest that the IPCC is unbiased, to which I will counter with, the opening paragraph from
the History of the IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

Second would come the question of why they thought they needed "realistic response strategies", if they were still assessing if a problem existed?

Because the evidence at the time pointed to the fact that a problem existed. Its not real hard.
 
Because the evidence at the time pointed to the fact that a problem existed. Its not real hard.
It still points to the IPCC as starting with preconceived ideas, I.E. biases.
If they were truly looking at weather AGW was a problem or not, they would not start by saying
they needed realistic response strategies!
 
But it would sure be refreshing if serious scientists were no longer muzzled or left out of the equation and could step forward boldly and say Michael Mann is in error and here is why.

You are free to suggest that the IPCC is unbiased, to which I will counter with, the opening paragraph from
the History of the IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

Second would come the question of why they thought they needed "realistic response strategies", if they were still assessing if a problem existed?

There are big problems with the IPCC.
The U.N.s own review of the IPCC had to admit it.
When you get such a huge publicly funded organization that doesn't think they have to answer to anyone but politicians who've made it clear what the product should look like, then you should expect problems.
And you also end up with members of U.S. Government orgs like the NOAA feel compelled to fake data in order to eliminate the warming pause and subsequently refuse a subpoena to disclose their work.

The corruption of the climate cabal is extensive.
 
There are big problems with the IPCC.
The U.N.s own review of the IPCC had to admit it.
When you get such a huge publicly funded organization that doesn't think they have to answer to anyone but politicians who've made it clear what the product should look like, then you should expect problems.
And you also end up with members of U.S. Government orgs like the NOAA feel compelled to fake data in order to eliminate the warming pause and subsequently refuse a subpoena to disclose their work.

The corruption of the climate cabal is extensive.
I think of it more as a parade of the willing, you have a group of people who grew up watching Captain Planet,
thinking they are on a crusade to save the world from those who would destroy it for fun.
 
It still points to the IPCC as starting with preconceived ideas, I.E. biases.
If they were truly looking at weather AGW was a problem or not, they would not start by saying
they needed realistic response strategies!

Do you think a major comprehensive worldwide review of the evidence was done at random?

The issue was that it was clear that there was a potential problem, and the IPCC was convened to assess it.

The funny thing is that you are about thirty years behind the curve. The issue was identified decades ago.
 
There are big problems with the IPCC.
The U.N.s own review of the IPCC had to admit it.
When you get such a huge publicly funded organization that doesn't think they have to answer to anyone but politicians who've made it clear what the product should look like, then you should expect problems.
And you also end up with members of U.S. Government orgs like the NOAA feel compelled to fake data in order to eliminate the warming pause and subsequently refuse a subpoena to disclose their work.

The corruption of the climate cabal is extensive.

Go ahead. Call it a giant worldwide conspiracy.

We all understand thats what you really mean.
 
I think of it more as a parade of the willing, you have a group of people who grew up watching Captain Planet,
thinking they are on a crusade to save the world from those who would destroy it for fun.

I wish I could be as sanguine about their motivation but if that was true there wouldn't have been such an intense (and successful) effort to get control of organizations like the IPCC, the print & online outlets that deliver the inputs to the IPCC, and the Government arms that are supposed to do related scientific research.

The truth would have been enough to succeed.

So far you might think such things could still be driven by plain old well intentioned over-zealousness.

So I think when scientific processes are routinely violated, organization rules are ignored, transparency disregarded, opposing data and studies disregarded and careers affected, and actual deceit exposed by their own words never intended to be made public ... that tells me it's a different ballgame.
 
I wish I could be as sanguine about their motivation but if that was true there wouldn't have been such an intense (and successful) effort to get control of organizations like the IPCC, the print & online outlets that deliver the inputs to the IPCC, and the Government arms that are supposed to do related scientific research.

The truth would have been enough to succeed.

So far you might think such things could still be driven by plain old well intentioned over-zealousness.

So I think when scientific processes are routinely violated, organization rules are ignored, transparency disregarded, opposing data and studies disregarded and careers affected, and actual deceit exposed by their own words never intended to be made public ... that tells me it's a different ballgame.

Yet not a SINGLE major scientific organization around the world says this- in fact, they all wholly support the basic findings of the IPCC.

I think the ballgame you're thinking of is 'giant secret conspiracy'.

Time to admit that to yourself.
 
Do you think a major comprehensive worldwide review of the evidence was done at random?

The issue was that it was clear that there was a potential problem, and the IPCC was convened to assess it.

The funny thing is that you are about thirty years behind the curve. The issue was identified decades ago.
If they started by stating their goal was to find "realistic response strategies" there is a bias that there is a problem in need of a response.
not a potential problem to be studied.
 
I wish I could be as sanguine about their motivation but if that was true there wouldn't have been such an intense (and successful) effort to get control of organizations like the IPCC, the print & online outlets that deliver the inputs to the IPCC, and the Government arms that are supposed to do related scientific research.

The truth would have been enough to succeed.

So far you might think such things could still be driven by plain old well intentioned over-zealousness.

So I think when scientific processes are routinely violated, organization rules are ignored, transparency disregarded, opposing data and studies disregarded and careers affected, and actual deceit exposed by their own words never intended to be made public ... that tells me it's a different ballgame.
I suspect it is a limited number of zealots, who have the faith, they shout down, buy off or ostracize the non believers.
The Governments for their part, simply see a potential revenue stream and control mechanism.
 
I suspect it is a limited number of zealots, who have the faith, they shout down, buy off or ostracize the non believers.
The Governments for their part, simply see a potential revenue stream and control mechanism.

Both things are true and both feed off each other.
But politics drives it and the effort of the zealots couldn't survive without Governments leading and paying.
The IPCC is established by Governments and Governments control it - it is a function of the U.N., after all, and its agenda and outputs are preordained.
The name doesn't start with "Intergovernmental" by accident.
Participants at the top (those zealots you mentioned) are recommended by Governments and it's not unusual to find they are activists associated with groups like the WWF, Greenpeace (e.g. an ex-IPCC Chairman), Environmental Defense Fund, and on and on.
It's an ugly scandal.
 
Both things are true and both feed off each other.
But politics drives it and the effort of the zealots couldn't survive without Governments leading and paying.
The IPCC is established by Governments and Governments control it - it is a function of the U.N., after all, and its agenda and outputs are preordained.
The name doesn't start with "Intergovernmental" by accident.
Participants at the top (those zealots you mentioned) are recommended by Governments and it's not unusual to find they are activists associated with groups like the WWF, Greenpeace (e.g. an ex-IPCC Chairman), Environmental Defense Fund, and on and on.
It's an ugly scandal.

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

True that! :thumbs: I'm not in favor of joining the one-world-government group - I like our Constitution and Bill of Rights protections, so thank you very much, dear Founders! :yes:
 
Both things are true and both feed off each other.
But politics drives it and the effort of the zealots couldn't survive without Governments leading and paying.
The IPCC is established by Governments and Governments control it - it is a function of the U.N., after all, and its agenda and outputs are preordained.
The name doesn't start with "Intergovernmental" by accident.
Participants at the top (those zealots you mentioned) are recommended by Governments and it's not unusual to find they are activists associated with groups like the WWF, Greenpeace (e.g. an ex-IPCC Chairman), Environmental Defense Fund, and on and on.
It's an ugly scandal.
I agree, but the relationship is symbiotic not conspiratorial!
Each of the parties have their own reasons for following the path, they may not even be the same reasons,
only that the path mutually benefits the players.
 
I agree, but the relationship is symbiotic not conspiratorial!
Each of the parties have their own reasons for following the path, they may not even be the same reasons,
only that the path mutually benefits the players.
I can't distinguish the two ... the line has become too blurred.
And besides, does it matter?
 
I agree, but the relationship is symbiotic not conspiratorial!
Each of the parties have their own reasons for following the path, they may not even be the same reasons,
only that the path mutually benefits the players.

Yep.

All I can think of a person who cries "conspiracy" is of their stupidity.
 
Climate News
[h=1]Climate activists’ final act, as they move into the last stage of grief[/h]By Larry Kummer. Posted at the Fabius Maximus website. Summary: Trump’s election, solidifying the Republican’s dominance at all levels of the US government, has disheartened climate activists. A new article in The Atlantic attempts to build support, but only shows the weakness of their beliefs. Perhaps the skeptics have won this round of the climate…
 
Back
Top Bottom