quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

There is a bit too much denial in the the "denialgate" thread to try and do this there, and I'd like to see this go in the direction of the big question anyway, but the original source of the fuss is presented by that thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The founding of the IPCC presupposed the permanency of climate change and its anthropogenesis imo. A giant bureaucratic edifice has been built to house and promulgate a single hypothesis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem, I think, is that “science” has been structuralized and co-opted into a political process. The IPCC claims it is a scientific endeavor and policy neutral. It gathers information from volunteer scientists all over the world. But 195 governments are involved in the review process after the scientific data has been funneled through working groups.

The founding of the IPCC presupposed the permanency of climate change and its anthropogenesis imo. A giant bureaucratic edifice has been built to house and promulgate a single hypothesis. I submit that science was most credible in its previous non-structural form where debate and dissent were free. Scientific reasoning threw off the yoke of superstition and religion during the Age of Enlightenment, but now stands to be collared by international politics. Any wonder why there is resistance? If ever there was a need for deconstruction it is in this monster of an international, political/scientific truth-proclaiming machine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The founding of the IPCC presupposed the permanency of climate change and its anthropogenesis imo. A giant bureaucratic edifice has been built to house and promulgate a single hypothesis.

A giant edifice? Really?

Got a guess as to the number of people actually employed by the IPCC?

As of 2009 it was 9 and they wanted to hire 4 more.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session30/doc19.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The founding of the IPCC presupposed the permanency of climate change and its anthropogenesis imo. A giant bureaucratic edifice has been built to house and promulgate a single hypothesis.

A giant edifice? Really?

Got a guess as to the number of people actually employed by the IPCC?



As of 2009 it was 9 and they wanted to hire 4 more.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session30/doc19.pdf

quote:

Well, I think Vincent's point was that once you take the input of thousands of scientists, get their best concensus, and then run it by almost 200 national governments to get their collective OK, it makes for a lot of chances to be mealy mouthed and water things down.
That is why they dropped their certainty level to 95% sure that global warming is happening, and only 90% sure that it is caused by mankind.
Without the layers of administrative gunk, it probably would have been higher, but a lot of folks involved in the process at the government level wanted to slow things down as much as they could.

quote:

Irrespective of institutional influences on international politics, economics still has [it] by the throat and there is no debate about climate change but its major cause.

Thus, the first suspicion in any objective observation, is the corrupting influence of...the profit motive. Such incentives create the need to establish that contrarians have equally corrupting motives resulting in the very cynicism shown here that would suggest that any of the science that has served all since the dawn of climate is only now...in doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Well, I think Vincent's point was that once you take the input of thousands of scientists, get their best concensus, and then run it by almost 200 national governments to get their collective OK, it makes for a lot of chances to be mealy mouthed and water things down.
That is why they dropped their certainty level to 95% sure that global warming is happening, and only 90% sure that it is caused by mankind.
Without the layers of administrative gunk, it probably would have been higher, but a lot of folks involved in the process at the government level wanted to slow things down as much as they could.

Not my point, softbonds. I am not concerned with any watering down. My criticism is that no concensus can be taken as valid after data is interpreted and reinturpreted through a political institution. That is not science. That is geopolitics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
But truly, counting heads in one headquarters misleads. Have you not seen photographs of the assembled delegates and apparachniks at their conferences? The Catholic Church has only one Pope, the Curia, and a few hundred Cardiinals and yet it has managed to spread its influence over the West for 16 Centuries or so. It is not the number of people who make the institution; it is the organizational chart and the hierarchal process.

quote:

This strikes me as a very weak argument. If this logic is accepted, then any scientific consensus can be automatically invalidated simply by subjecting it to a political process. Taken to its logical conclusion, H2O will no longer be water if some bureaucratic committee decides so.

quote:

If the IPCC is assumed to be the institution that created the consensus, Vincent might have a point. My understanding is that the IPCC is the political institution created to transfer the discussion from the scientific realm to the political one, with the aim of enabling collective government action on a worldwide basis.

quote:

The scientific consensus pre-existed the IPCC and its existence is wholly independent of the IPCC. The validity of the scientific consensus is therefore quite independent of the IPCC, it should stand or fall on the data and how that data is interpreted.

quote:

Please present the Human Resource records on the total personnel, job title, and 'salary' of everyone employed during the 12th century. The concept of Climate Change has only been around at best, for forty years. Yet in that time, scientists have understood more about this planet than the Catholic Church has in its "...16 Centuries...". Likewise, people that disagree with scientists are not butchered, raped, mauled, pillaged and murdered; Can you say the same about the Catholic Church's long and 'enlighted' existance?

quote:

You make mention of other groups to this IPCC, but show no evidence of an actual number of personnel that work for them. Nor in what manner they work for the IPCC. 'Technical Support' can mean alot of things: A) systems admin B) secretary C) 'Waste-Management Technician' D) money launder, etc (i.e. non-biology/chemisty/physics scientist). You show no evidence of either of these, so as far as I know they are dumby operations set up to give the impression that this organization is much larger than it sounds. So unless you come back with ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE, that these organizations are both 'legit' and 'actually manned', I'll go with DK's number of '9' persons working for that organization. Because that is the conclusion a SCIENTIST would make given the data at present.

quote:

This is the problem with injecting politics into science.It makes for bad science and bad politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

This is the problem with injecting politics into science.It makes for bad science and bad politics.

Just look at what happens when we allow politics to be injected into medical issues and into medicine.Bad medicine and bad politics and real harm and damage done.

Look at what happens when we allow politics to be enjected into religion......it`s never a good result for either party.

Last week my republican brother and rush fan and I were discussing climate change when I used my mom and her health issues as an example of how easy it would be to muck up the discussions.

When we make decisions together about her healthcare choices(she can no longer do this herself)it`s never easy or simple.

No-brainer solutions/decisions are very rare.

So I asked him to imagine that we`re deciding something vitally important about our mom,where we need the truth and unbiased knowledge/facts and in comes someone who isn`t a doctor.....telling us that what OUR doctors were saying...... wasn`t true?

I asked him to consider how easy it would be to muddy up the waters and cast doubt and fuck up our most important decisions.

The fucked up thing tho,is that they didn`t even care about my mom`s condition,good or bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Same with denialists......they really don`t care .......

If they were honest...........they`d admit that they don`t even care about climate change or their children`s and great-grand children`s futures.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The problem, I think, is that “science” has been structuralized and co-opted into a political process. The IPCC claims it is a scientific endeavor and policy neutral. It gathers information from volunteer scientists all over the world. But 195 governments are involved in the review process after the scientific data has been funneled through working groups.

The founding of the IPCC presupposed the permanency of climate change and its anthropogenesis imo. A giant bureaucratic edifice has been built to house and promulgate a single hypothesis. I submit that science was most credible in its previous non-structural form where debate and dissent were free. Scientific reasoning threw off the yoke of superstition and religion during the Age of Enlightenment, but now stands to be collared by international politics. Any wonder why there is resistance? If ever there was a need for deconstruction it is in this monster of an international, political/scientific truth-proclaiming machine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

This is the problem with injecting politics into science.It makes for bad science and bad politics.

Just look at what happens when we allow politics to be injected into medical issues and into medicine.Bad medicine and bad politics and real harm and damage done.

Look at what happens when we allow politics to be enjected into religion......it`s never a good result for either party.

Last week my republican brother and rush fan and I were discussing climate change when I used my mom and her health issues as an example of how easy it would be to muck up the discussions.

When we make decisions together about her healthcare choices(she can no longer do this herself)it`s never easy or simple.

No-brainer solutions/decisions are very rare.

So I asked him to imagine that we`re deciding something vitally important about our mom,where we need the truth and unbiased knowledge/facts and in comes someone who isn`t a doctor.....telling us that what OUR doctors were saying...... wasn`t true?

I asked him to consider how easy it would be to muddy up the waters and cast doubt and fuck up our most important decisions.

The fucked up thing tho,is that they didn`t even care about my mom`s condition,good or bad.

I really thought you were going to do it. I thought you were going to get through an entire post without playing the blame game but you didn't disappoint. You managed to vilify everyone who doesn't convert to the religion of "Mother Earth". Congratulations!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Same with denialists......they really don`t care .......

If they were honest...........they`d admit that they don`t even care about climate change or their children`s and great-grand children`s futures.......

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So basic question, was there a single passage in the "forged" memo that does not appear in some document that Heartland has acknowledged as real?