Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So we see that the IPCC is the primary and pre-eminent purveyor and transmitter of climate data used by its stakeholders to formulate political and economic policy. Which is the basic definition of the IPCC.
But when I posit that AGW is political science with an economic agenda, I must be some crazy denier and conspiracy theorist.
Certainly the pre-eminent purveyor and primary conduit and assessor and evaluator of all the climate data the world over is dispassionate and without a pronounced political agenda and viewpoint.
It must be madness and paranoia to assign political objectives to this group of scientists and scientific authors who just want to help. After all they just want to provide the world with sustainable development goals. And what might those "goals" be?
What if I were to tell you that the goals are the usual hackneyed collectivistic basket of deplorables? A traditional algorian tour-de-force of redistribution, statism, and leftist-collectivism. But mixed in with a pastiche of modern political correctness to make it go down easy, or more accurately to shove it down your throat.
So let's see what the pre-eminent purveyor of climate data, the IPCC, has in store for us. Certainly the goals are apolitical and must surely be scientific and based in data and not ideology.
Oh dear, what just happened? It looks like I mistakenly posted a link to some godforsaken edition of the Leftist Redistributionist Collectivist Playbook. Certainly it must be a horrible mistake. This can't be the sustainable goals of the IPCC whose mission statement claims to be: dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change.
This can't be happening. Well, ladies and gentlemen, like the Best Picture Flub we just witnessed a few days ago, this is in fact happening. The Left Wing Playbook you just clicked on IS the sustainable goals of the IPPC, the primary evaluator and purveyor and transmitter of dispassionate, pure, climate data unencumbered by political agendas.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 03-04-2017 at 11:33 PM..
nearly EVERY interglacial cycle has brought us (the globe) to an average temp of about 73'f....we are WELL BELOW that at a global average temp currently at 59'f
what is it that you are not getting????? why do you deny that nearly every cycle has had a warm peak at around 73'f-75'f...we are still way short....by you deny, deny, deny
I'm no climate scientist, but why does that matter? Sorry if I'm not understanding something, but it's not as if a cycle would maintain until it hit an average temperature, would it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
from your link
EVERY 100,000 years...
when did the last ice age end....16,000 years ago
I am correct..you deny
Again, looking at the graph you posted it doesn't appear that interglacials are flat, but that they peak and differences begin to slope down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
So let's follow that. They assess the research? Do you know what assessment means? It means they evaluate the research. Which means, they determine which research is valid and which is not.
Again, I'm no climate scientist and just using common sense and this doesn't make sense. Journals evaluate if research is valid. These people are evaluating what's in the literature ALREADY and the literature points in ONE direction. It has nothing to do with the IPCC. So, you need to go back to your original global conspiracy theory that blames the publishing researchers.
Quote:
Think about it.
This is an interesting point. What good does it do in the absence of critical thinking?
So let's follow that. They assess the research? Do you know what assessment means? It means they evaluate the research. Which means, they determine which research is valid and which is not. Evaluation of research is a critical task that determines what conclusions are reached, what conclusions are reported, and what conclusions move forward in formulating political policy. It could be argued that evaluation of research is as important as the research itself. Evaluation determines inclusion. And, evaluation determines exclusion.
Evaluation is literally determining the validity of research to be included in IPCC assessment reports. So does this matter? Is the IPCC that important?
So we see that the IPCC is in fact regarded as the preeminent purveyor and transmitter of climate data used in formulating political and economic policy. And the selection of its lead authors has to be considered to be a primary and fundamental factor in determining what data moves forward to its constituencies.
And so we would assume that selection is based in merit and certitude and qualification.
And we would be wrong. Among the primary factors are "GENDER BALANCE", "GEOGRAPHY", AND INCLUSION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND TRANSITIONAL ECONOMIES.
It's utterly preposterous that the sex of the applicant MATTERS in assigning the lead authors. And the second part is designed to make absolutely sure that the 3rd world hell holes who are going to be PAID OFF with the carbon taxation are present and accounted for.
The whole thing is political, political, political. It's not about what is true. It's about gender balance and geographical "diversity"
And this is just the tip of the iceberg - the selection of the EVALUATORS. This doesn't even go to what the IPCC actually does, only the selection criteria for deciding who gets to pull the strings.
Gender balance. Geographical diversity. THAT is who we are to trust.
Think about it.
No, it means they determine which research is worth including on their report. It is already peer reviewed and thus "valid" already. The IPCC is not a peer review organization, please educate yourself if you are going to continually blather. They are not checking methods, or replicating results, that is not the role of the IPCC and thus they are not assessing VALIDITY but rather UTILITY to the stated goals of that particular report. Which is why having assessor of different backgrounds, nationalities, and even genders is important. So that the report reflects the global research and not just that of which ever nation or subfield the a particular subset of the assessor pool feels is necessary.
And yet again, who cares what YOU think? This is a scientific organization, and there are multitudes of scientific papers that show that diversity of a team, increases the value of a product that should be global in scope.
Your argument only hold validity if you are talking about validating research, but that isn't what the IPCC does, so you point "fails". And no the IPCC is just a large review of the literature, it is not the rpeminent anything. Again, just stuff you have made up. It is a widely read, global perspective, review of the literature on the topic of climate change. In fact a large part of its utility is that it has a global perspective, which is why many of the authors are not actual scientists but include political scientists, economists, and academics.
And you aren't even talking about th actual IPCC report which is still thousands of pages, but the briefing which is in large part generated by government officials who finally get involved at this stage. This is where representatives of oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia throw hissy fits until graphs or details the scientists and other academic find to be scientifically relevant are removed. If there is any criticism of the report to be made, it is that the final briefing is not the product of the scientists and other academics but rather that of governments trying to filter out what science they do not like for their own individual nations political needs.
But let's be honest, you cannot be rational about your assessment of anything climate change because as you admitted several posts back, it challenges your belief system. If you cannot be rational you don't belong in a debate.
No, it means they determine which research is worth including on their report. It is already peer reviewed and thus "valid" already. The IPCC is not a peer review organization, please educate yourself if you are going to continually blather. They are not checking methods, or replicating results, that is not the role of the IPCC and thus they are not assessing VALIDITY but rather UTILITY to the stated goals of that particular report. Which is why having assessor of different backgrounds, nationalities, and even genders is important. So that the report reflects the global research and not just that of which ever nation or subfield the a particular subset of the assessor pool feels is necessary.
And yet again, who cares what YOU think? This is a scientific organization, and there are multitudes of scientific papers that show that diversity of a team, increases the value of a product that should be global in scope.
Your argument only hold validity if you are talking about validating research, but that isn't what the IPCC does, so you point "fails". And no the IPCC is just a large review of the literature, it is not the rpeminent anything. Again, just stuff you have made up. It is a widely read, global perspective, review of the literature on the topic of climate change. In fact a large part of its utility is that it has a global perspective, which is why many of the authors are not actual scientists but include political scientists, economists, and academics.
And you aren't even talking about th actual IPCC report which is still thousands of pages, but the briefing which is in large part generated by government officials who finally get involved at this stage. This is where representatives of oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia throw hissy fits until graphs or details the scientists and other academic find to be scientifically relevant are removed. If there is any criticism of the report to be made, it is that the final briefing is not the product of the scientists and other academics but rather that of governments trying to filter out what science they do not like for their own individual nations political needs.
But let's be honest, you cannot be rational about your assessment of anything climate change because as you admitted several posts back, it challenges your belief system. If you cannot be rational you don't belong in a debate.
Are we deflecting from an Inconvenient Truth? That THIS is where climate scientists want to take us?
By the way, let's look at #10 of the "sustainable goals" of the climate scientists:
Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sustainable Goal #10:
"Reduce inequality within and among countries".
Interesting agenda. I thought they were talking about climate change, but no, it's also social engineering and algorian politics. How did that slip in there? The same way this did:
Quote:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sustainable Goal #11:
"Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls".
Oh dear, more algorian social engineering in a climate document (!) from the pre-eminent international panel on climate science.
It seems like the AGW community might have an itsy bitsy little agenda for all of us to follow. And damned if much of that has nothing at all to do with climate. But uses climate as a tool in the toolbox. Interesting agenda.
Well let's just start with the IPCC. Did you know that one of the prime methods of selecting its contributing scientists is "gender balance"? And another is emphasis on inclusion of members from the "developing world" and "economies in transition".
So we see that an essential qualification in being accepted as an author of IPCC pronouncements is nakedly political. Shouldn't it be solely about the quality of the "science" and the certitude of the data? But right from the start - selecting the spokesmen - the selection process is political, not scientific.
I mean, gender balance???????!!!!!! AYFKM?
So at genesis, we start with political considerations. Interesting, no?
Nonetheless, if I need heart surgery I still go to my local hospital rather than my local witch doctor. I may not agree with the hospital's HR policies, but I'm still going to trust the doctors who work there.
It's clear by now that you have an ideological objection to AGW. Your rejection of AGW is not based on scientific objections.
Just look at those goals. SOBs lol. If we had quality education there wouldn't be fun debates like this.
The point isn't what the goals are. They happen to be the usual grab bag of Marxism, collectivism, statism, and leftism, with a dollop of political correctness and social engineering. But the point is: there are indeed goals, and they are political goals. And climate science is being used as a battering ram to achieve those political goals.
It's not about science or truth. It's about the goals.
Nonetheless, if I need heart surgery I still go to my local hospital rather than my local witch doctor. I may not agree with the hospital's HR policies, but I'm still going to trust the doctors who work there.
It's clear by now that you have an ideological objection to AGW. Your rejection of AGW is not based on scientific objections.
In this case the ideology drives the science, and therefore the resulting science is self-nullifying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
