Is there any need for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

[Boojatta]

Let me first say that if the IPCC consists of people who believe that predicting climate catastrophe can serve their ideological agenda, then the IPCC does have a reason for existing.

My concern is the possibility that the IPCC consists not of people who have a broadly similar ideological outlook, but of people who are simply focused on the topic of climate, and who want to ensure that proper scientific protocol is used in the study of climate.

Let's say some guy says "I want to study the climate. Please join my organization, donate money, and help me with fundraising so that I can spend my time doing research."

The first question anyone is going to ask is, "Why would I want to spend my time and money helping you?"

Which answer is going to get the desired response?

OPTION 1: "I just want to study the climate. You should help me, because that's the nice thing to do. My desire to adhere to proper scientific protocol should be enough."

OPTION 2: "You should help me study the climate because I have figured out a way that together we can get more than the 700 billion dollars that the banks got. They created a real financial crisis, and lots of people became unemployed as a result. With my plan we can create the impression that there is a climate crisis, and nothing that we do will actually create any hazard to anybody. You will get more money than you ever dreamed possible. It's a completely reliable way to get money. We can't lose, and with my plan nobody gets hurt."

[kestrel91316]

1. More importantly, how is it prohibited by the Constitution?

If it isn't, then what's it to you? Do you have a problem with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly???

[fascisthunter]

2. I don't understand what you fear

[pscot]

3. I never thought I'd miss the unrec button

Maybe you'd prefer to leave the issue to the completely unbiased energy industry shills who are paid handsomely not to believe in climate change.

[Boojatta]

4. I suspect a potential conflict between unbiased and shills.

If so-called "think tanks" that are funded by firms in fossil fuel industries are unbiased think tanks, then I ask you this: do such think tanks have any reason for existing? I think that it's a legitimate question for me to ask. I'm not taking sides in any climate change debate. I'm focused on a much more general issue, and I have taken the liberty of picking a random example in order to consider the general issue from the perspective of that specific example.

It may help to look again at what I already wrote:

Let me first say that if the IPCC consists of people who believe that predicting climate catastrophe can serve their ideological agenda, then the IPCC does have a reason for existing.

My concern is the possibility that the IPCC consists not of people who have a broadly similar ideological outlook, but of people who are simply focused on the topic of climate, and who want to ensure that proper scientific protocol is used in the study of climate.

[pscot]

6. So it's OK if the IPCC is pursueing an ideologocal agenda

but not OK if they're just interested in good science? That's a somewhat unusual perspective.

[grantcart]

7. "both sides in any climate change debate"

Really both sides of a debate?

Maybe we should look at the other side that disagrees with Copernicus.

Would that other side also have another explanation for the accidification of the Oceans?

I believe that is an irrefutable fact;

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH and increase in acidity of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[1] About a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes into the oceans, where it forms carbonic acid.

As the amount of carbon has risen in the atmosphere there has been a corresponding rise of carbon going into the ocean. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[2] representing an increase of almost 30% in "acidity" (H+ ion concentration) in the world's oceans.[3][4][5]

This ongoing acidification of the oceans poses a threat to the food chains connected with the oceans.[6]

Cars produce milllions of tons of carbon dioxide every day. What other side is there to that?

Where do you think that CO2 is going?

The burden of proof is not on those that are studying the issue, the burden of proof is on the industry that is creating the CO2.

[Boojatta]

9. I didn't get past your title. Who were you quoting?

I presume that no scientific research into climate change is conducted in a manner that prohibits debate between genuine climate scientists. However, I don't assume that such a debate would necessarily have exactly two sides. After all, we're talking about science, not CNN's "Crossfire" show.

I thought that I had used enough care when I chose the word "any" in the phrase "any climate change debate." However, if I wasn't clear enough then I apologize. Perhaps you can identify precisely what it is about my word choices that contributed to the misunderstanding, so that I can work on the problem of editing my past contributions to this thread to increase clarity, and learn from you how I might in future write in a manner that will reduce the risk of misunderstanding.

Link to Crossfire in a rare moment of informative meta-discussion:
"Jon Stewart on Crossfire"

[stevenleser]

11. Interesting that you provide that video link, because I think that is the worst thing that Stewart

has ever done.

I think that CNN killed that show as a direct result of Stewarts appearance and as a result we have never had one of the top three cable news networks with a completely fair left vs. right debate each night for a whole show.

I think Stewart's heart was in the right place, but he killed what to my way of thinking was an important show. He doesnt want the fighting, but have things gotten better on TV since then, specifically Cable News TV? Has the overall political discourse gotten better since then?

There are virtually no shows you can point to where on a daily basis, you have two competent people argue the issues, one from the left and one from the right, where the format isnt purposefully skewed to give one of them an advantage.

[Boojatta]

15. In your opinion, what's the worst thing that

Salman Rushdie has done?

(Think it over carefully before you post your reply. There's a small but real hazard that posting it will in future be the worst thing that you ever did.)

[grantcart]

12. I quoted your Post

If so-called "think tanks" that are funded by firms in fossil fuel industries are unbiased think tanks, then I ask you this: do such think tanks have any reason for existing? I think that it's a legitimate question for me to ask. I'm not taking sides in any climate change debate. I'm focused on a much more general issue, and I have taken the liberty of picking a random example in order to consider the general issue from the perspective of that specific example.

[Boojatta]

17. Now, that's quoting my post.

There's a difference between then and now.

That was then:

"both sides in any climate change debate"

Really both sides of a debate?

Do you see that you used the word "both" and that you used it twice?

This is now:

I'm not taking sides in any climate change debate.

Do you see that I didn't use the word "both"?

I appreciate that you added bolding to not only identify the specific part that you had initially tried to quote, but to also identify the context in which that specific part occurred, and to identify that context without any risk of distorting it.

[grantcart]

18. You just don't get it.

Its your entire framing that there are two nearly equal sides and you aren't taking them that is so objectionable.


Are there two sides to the accidification of the Oceans?


No. Only one side. Fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Do you think that there are two sides to the debate about whether Copernicus was correct or not?

Do you belive that there are two sides to debate about evolution?

There is not. There is a scientific side and a non scientific side.

This article by by Donald R. Prothero outlines the science side

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/

n January 27, 2012, the Wall Street Journal ran an Opinion Editorial written by 16 people who deny the evidence of human-induced climate change. Most of the authors of the editorial were not climate scientists; one of two actual climate scientists of the group, Richard Lindzen, is a notorious global warming denier who also denies that smoking causes cancer. Predictably, the Rupert Murdoch-owned Journal refused to run a statement by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences, although a “Letter to the Editor” by 38 of the world’s leading climate scientists1 did manage to get published there. The letter pointed out the numerous lies, mistakes, and fallacies in the editorial, along with a scathing rebuke by climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, whose remarks were quoted out of context to make them seem the opposite of what he actually said.


There is a scientific side and there is a non science side but there are not two scientific sides.

Now do we really need to go back and revisit the Copernicus debate?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. If you do want to debate this, I suggest you check out this similar thread from a bit earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002443485

Boojatta seems to find the IPCC and a hypothetical 'non-partisan political party' similar.

[Johonny]

14. +1

[lunatica]

5. I know what my answer would be to both options

What's yours?

[Boojatta]

8. If you want answers ...

then you should ask somebody who claims to have answers. I do have questions, if you're interested. For example, this thread begins with the title, which is a question.

I hope that people who care about the opinions of others will contribute enough ideas, data, and references to help others do some self-help correction of any misconceptions that they may have. After all, if you want your enemy to retreat, then you provide a golden bridge. If you want people to correct their errors, then you make it easy for them to do it in private, so that they can save face.

[lunatica]

13. Actually you're trying to tell everyone what to think

Which is kind of useless.

[Boojatta]

16. Tell me more about my intentions.