'Fear of science' at root of journalists' critique of think tank

Not one word said by you changes what I said. But thanks for commenting on your version of the formation of IPCC which is indeed a political body and does no science.

Few admit the politics that happens at IPCC but when you said it does no science, you opened the door to it's politics.

Scientists never report to a non existing entity. Said entity came together with a common belief in place. They were not seeking to be persuaded man changes climate, it was the guts of why they formed in the first place. Then to use politics to make changes globally.

Suppose the IPCC stated on page 1, Temperatures changed over a 140 year span from .65 C to 1.06 C and our goal is to blame it on man.

That is far more honest than how it currently is presented.

 

The thing I want to add to your comments are both parties have the same rules.

Trump won with less cash than Hillary had. Today Trump is the leader in cash raising. He still has to persuade the proper voters. He would waste money were he to blow a lot on CA. Or here in my new home in Idaho but for different reasons. In CA they are locked up for Democrats. Here it is just the opposite. Here My vote as a republican actually matters but not in CA when i lived there. There it was hopeless my vote did a bit of good.

Corporations must obey their own documents. Corporations blowing corporate cash on politics have to answer to a board of directors. And the stockholders can raise a lot of hell if they refuse to follow the rules of the organization.

 

The IPCC reviews science just as every scientist does in order to advance said science, they are political only because the were appointed by a political entity. Every scientific body or researcher uses the work of others to build upon in order to function. The biggest "Political Problem" here is created by those that complain about

 

What does IPCC mean.
Intergovernmental = politics
Panel = Committees
Climate = can be science of course but the political body made up it's mind many years ago
Change = well, we have always had change

When the first report surfaced, it was one of the authors that raised hell. Dr Richard Lindzen believed the panel report was not accurate and designed to scare the public. So he took action.

 

How it works is that corporations and the super wealthy get speech FAR beyond the average and in a way that is well known to be decisive in political campaigns.

That's heavily weighted AGAINST democracy.

The reason I don't like it is that I favor democracy. And, don't give me any "we're a republic" nonsense, because presidential elections are a collection of democratic elections.

 

There was no such goal. The objective was to combine the independent results that come from myriad sources of science - from physics, geology, oceanography, NASA/space, surface measurement, those who study storms, those who study agriculture, etc., etc., and from all over the world.

And, that did not lead to reports that accepted all results as being climate change related.

Your attacks on the IPCC have included individuals with little to no credibility who are opposed by a gigantic percent of the entire world of science. I'm sorry, but I don't see your opinion as an individual as having the kind of credibility that should lead us to ignoring the climate change that ABSOLUTELY is happening - EVEN according to Dr. Curry and others who dispute the exact magnitude of human contribution.

 

yes, they question it cause they fear what the science is saying if true is bad news, no issues with that

I am glad they do not fear asking the questions

what is sad is many corps are now buying the media and they parrot what the corps want them to say - or use click bait they know is not true in titles, ect....

 

Keep cooking up lousy stories about me and see how far you get.

 

This should NOT be about parties. Democracy is about individuals.

The contribution rules were set by the wealthy in order to protect the issues of the wealthy - NOT the issues of the nation.

Corporations are required to maximize profit for their shareholders, who are the wealthy. Suggesting that corporate sponsorship of politicians is related to democracy is just plain silly.

 

I will say this about me. I have voted since JFK won. I never voted for the Democrats when i used to be loyal to them due to Corporations. I still never have and have stuck to Republicans since 1980. The sole wealthy person who came close to getting my vote was Ross Perot as an independent. But Trump never got my vote due to money. I voted for Trump because he knocked out my two candidates. I was not going to vote for Corporate clown H. Clinton at all.

Yes, the vote does reflect we are a Republic. A Democracy would have awarded Hillary with the victory but the Republic awarded it to Trump.

 

This includes none of the corrections needed for various cycles that exist.

For example, it doesn't include anything about solar cycles, it doesn't account for absorption of heat in oceans (which is not constant), etc.

Looking at relatively raw data (like temperature of Earth's lower atmosphere) is a good starting point, and it helps to see running averages of various time lengths.

But, this is not good enough to ignore the various other important factors.

 

You're entirely missing the point. Clinton lost because of the results of 50 democratic state elections.

And, SuperPACs affected each and every one of those state democracies.

I TOLD you not to bring up nonsense about us being a republic, because it is irrelevant to the issues of SuperPACs. And, THAT is the topic, not who you voted for and not the fact that Clinton had millions more total votes.

 

You are quite the authoritarian my friend. Quite the authoritarian. I do not respond to orders by posters.

As to Super Pacs, clearly they worked to favor Clinton over Trump.

 

Well, you are not at all able to be pleased by the science.

Will this please you?
http://meteodue.it/?action=profile;u=2067;area=showposts;start=150

 

Sorry, I'm in favor of democratic election processes.

And, SuperPACs work AGAINST that.

It's not about who won. It's about the process being an attack on democracy.

The Electoral College is also anti-democratic, but that's a separate issue.

The fact that Washington DC residents have no congressional representation even though they have more citizens that TWO STATES is also anti-democratic, and that, too, is a separate issue.

Now, our highly Republican SC has decided that gerrymandering is ok - even though THAT has been shown to be HUGELY anti-democratic.

We claim to support democracy. That's what we advocate to other countries.

But, WE advocate AGAINST democracy, over and over again.

 

You give me a BLOG??

Written in Italian???

 

Oh, you assumed this country is a democracy.

I see your problem now.

 

I was able to have it translated on my system. But never mind.

 

This country is a republic of democracies.

Our republic depends on democracy and we tout democracy (including representative democracy) is the legitimate method of making decisions and choosing leadership.

 

So, when your local government wants to take an action, you get to vote yay or nay?

 

As I stated earlier in a post to you on this thread (and as you should well know), we elect representatives (democracy) who make some of the decisions for us.

Are you seriously unaware of that? I'm just wondering where this conversation is headed.

 

OMG..... never mind.