"This is Too Funny!!! Mini Ice Age Coming in 15 Years" Topic

SB, you're comparing apples to orangutang.

But when it's AGW -- no hesitation, crystal clear that is and can only be CO2!

Not even the IPCC has that position. There are multiple factors that affect the earth's temperature, but all things being equal, CO2 is by far the most important.

LOL! That's about the most restrained statement on AGW and CO2 I've ever seen you make, and it barely qualifies as a qualified statement.

Yea, I love the "it's settled", especially when used in conjunction with either science, or law.

Under that rule, the Earth is still flat, and slavery still exists, since "it's settled".

Some people will do, and/or say anything to get/keep that study funding rolling in, or to increase their control over others through onerous taxation (carbon taxes being the latest scam).

As pointed out already, "it's settled" in terms of the Earth's temp rise over the course of the next century (if you believe the pundits and theorists – who are just making educated guesses), and we're "locked and loaded" even if we cut our emissions in the USA by 100%.

That is obviously be silly, since other gross polluter nations will just pick up the slack for the stuff we don't make, and expel even more hydrocarbons from their totally unregulated plants (many of which are apparently coal-fired, and lacking scrubbers), to produce these items, and then to transport them to us here from overseas.

And your point, Mako?

If its that you don't agree with the public policy response, then fine, disagree with it all you want.

But here's the bottomline: No matter what you think, I think or anyone else thinks, the science is _still_ true.

Ok, I've said this many times. Derpa

Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa. Therefore, Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa. To add to that, Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa to the 63 power and Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa.

I interpret that one way, the deniers another.

So everyone is an idiot.
--
Tim

PS Mako, slavery most definitely still exists, I'm not sure why you think it does not.

PPS Deniers, please take a physical geography course.

PPPS Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa my moose is a goose Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa 100s of millions of years of potential energy Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa Derpa.

the science is _still_ true.

Not when they are either making up numbers or playing funny with them.

As I stated before why was it hot back in the 1950's & 1960's?

It was not due to Global Warming/Climate Change.

There are certain groups pushing it now because they have agendas and want control.

It is no warmer today then it has been in the past.

And yet the science says otherwise, Mithmee.

Actually, JP, we are in a cooling period.

For Great War Ace's notice:

Platypuses aren't even on the endangered list at the moment.
Numbers would be comparable to pre-European levels.

link

Any threats to them are from loss of habitat rather than any global climate change. I very much doubt if the Australian authorities would allow them to become extinct.

They are rather hardy little beasts with a lower normal body temperature than placental mammals to combat extremes of heat.
They're odd little creatures. Like koalas, they're hard to spot. I've seen them in zoos a plenty but only once in the wild: not too far from my home in a secluded pool.

Actually, JP, we are in a cooling period.

Not according to NOAA:

link

Just a few bullet points:

Greenhouse gases continued to climb: Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, continued to rise during 2014, once again reaching historic high values. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 1.9 ppm in 2014, reaching a global average of 397.2 ppm for the year. This compares with a global average of 354.0 in 1990 when this report was first published just 25 years ago.

Record temperatures observed near the Earth's surface: Four independent global datasets showed that 2014 was the warmest year on record. The warmth was widespread across land areas. Europe experienced its warmest year on record, with more than 20 countries exceeding their previous records. Africa had above-average temperatures across most of the continent throughout 2014, Australia saw its third warmest year on record, Mexico had its warmest year on record, and Argentina and Uruguay each had their second warmest year on record. Eastern North America was the only major region to experience below-average annual temperatures.

The globally averaged sea surface temperature was the highest on record. The warmth was particularly notable in the North Pacific Ocean, where temperatures are in part likely driven by a transition of the Pacific decadal oscillation – a recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered in the region.

Global upper ocean heat content was record high: Globally, upper ocean heat content reached a record high for the year, reflecting the continuing accumulation of thermal energy in the upper layer of the oceans. Oceans absorb over 90 percent of Earth's excess heat from greenhouse gas forcing.

Global sea level was record high: Global average sea level rose to a record high in 2014. This keeps pace with the 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth observed over the past two decades.

There's more (a lot more) on the link.

Might want to check out the science before (once again) going out on that skinny limb.

Ditto, I'm sorry my point went over your head.

I never denied that slavery exists, even today.

My point is that the whole "it's settled law", or "it's settled science" is a specious argument, since it isn't as pointed out by the two preceding examples I have cited.

If you buy into the whole "it's settled law" then slavery would still be the legal law of the land, and in the other case, we'd still have textbooks and teachers/professors stating that the Earth is flat.

Very few things are settled as clearly as some may think.

Wow, 3 whole millimeters per year?

That is absolutely terrifying!

How will I ever get to sleep tonight? LOL.

Exactly how does one measure that sort of sea level rise, accurately?

My point is that the whole "it's settled law", or "it's settled science" is a specious argument, since it isn't as pointed out by the two preceding examples I have cited.

Well, if your examples were supported by solid, peer reviewed research, then yes, you'd have an argument. But, unfortunately, they're not (or, at least, none have been presented here).

I think we can say that this subject has definitively run its course. No one is going to change their positions, everyone is going to get their panties in a bunch and more than a few are going to get DH'd.

Which is why the OFM was right; this subject should be BANNED…

Hey, I've got a novel idea! Why don't we paint some of that lead mountain that we all have? And drop trying to debate Climate Change….

Great War--

Global warming has occurred many times before.

Nothing like it is now.

And I don't care two pins worth what happens to the coral reefs or animal species due to the warming THIS time around. The warming itself is natural. The Earth adapts, morphs, kills off life here, promotes it more there, changes occur and life goes on..

That is one beautiful rose colored picture of what's actually happening. It's kinda like describing 911 as nothing more than the natural process of entropy.

I want someone to prove that warming is "evil". Just because we caused it THIS time doesn't make the warming suddenly evil. It never was evil before. It just happened naturally. The greenies decry our having "caused" it THIS time, with our "unnatural" lifestyle releasing countless tons of "trapped" CO2 from fossil fuels in a geological heartbeat. Yet they don't seem to think that anything "they" propose as anthropomorphic interference is any less "evil". If our meddling is "evil", then that includes anything that "they" come up with to manipulate the warming

Who says warming is "evil"? Evil implies that it is consciously doing harm for its own pleasure. Warming isn't evil. Is "evil" your word for it? Now, someone who understands that continually pumping carbon emissions into the atmosphere is a bad thing, and yet still does it because they enjoy driving their 9-mpg Hummer around, might be considered evil. And how do you twist the notion that wanting to do something about that is "evil"?

Warming is natural. Manipulating is unnatural

It's because the current warming is NOT natural.

. Why is one manipulation okay while the other one is not?…

Because one is destructive, and the other hopes to stop the destruction. For example, a house catches fire. The fire department manipulates the event by putting the fire out. See the difference?

Mako said--

My point is that the whole "it's settled law", or "it's settled science" is a specious argument, since it isn't as pointed out by the two preceding examples I have cited.

So, what scientific research can you present that can support this point?

If you buy into the whole "it's settled law" then slavery would still be the legal law of the land, and in the other case, we'd still have textbooks and teachers/professors stating that the Earth is flat.

I addressed this above, but here it is again:
It would be except that climate change theory has been developed and supported by science, "…the earth is still flat…" was the position of those who did not believe the science. So you not believing in climate science is more akin to the "earth is still flat" position.

Wow, 3 whole millimeters per year?
That is absolutely terrifying!
How will I ever get to sleep tonight? LOL.
Exactly how does one measure that sort of sea level rise, accurately?

I'm not sure who exactly you are citing the 3mm to, but how would you know what the impact 3 mm would be on climate?

Actually, JP, we are in a cooling period.

Nope. We are not in a cooling period.

link

Why do people(lets face it mostly americans, atleast jugdeing from this thread) Have a problem with understanding the simple concept of a 2 degree increase in global temprature over 3 million years is less harmfull much less harmfull then a 2 degree increase in 50 years.

Gunfreak, remember, this is the country that used to make a talking Barbie that said, "Math Is hard!"

Although I think, ultimately, it's less about math and science than it is about simple partisanship.

It's not math or science, it's intuitive logic.

Energy over a short time frame does more "drastic" effects then same energy over long time.

To make it more clear.

The human body releases about 3 megajules of energy a day in heat energy.

That is the same amount of energy a car 1 ton car crashing in 160km an hour releases.

Generally most humans survive a day just fine, we don't explode(even tho thats 3 times the energy of a dynamite going of)

Cars generally don't survive a 160km an hour crash(neither does any humans inside)

Engergy released over a long time, not that harmfull, energy released over short time can be extreme.

So energy increase of 2 degrees celsius over 3 million years not a huge deal, over 50 years HUGE deal. It might not make the world explode, but a hurricane has more energy then 10 000 nukes, (an average hurricane)

a 2 degree increase in 50 years is a VAST amount of new energy. THATS ALOT OF EXTRA hurricanses, extra floods, extra droughts, extra tornadoes.

those gassilions of jules that a world wide heat increse of 2 degrees represent has to go some were, and it's not gonig to come in the form of mild winters.

Sorry that should be 3 times the energy of a car crashing which is 1 megajule

Interesting point, Gun. Time release was a factor that hadn't occurred to me. But it seems a tad non sequitur on the face of it. Comparing energy is a bit like comparing donuts and fruits. Intuitively there seems something wrong about your assertions of heat needing to "go somewhere". Heat in an enclosed environment is simply what it is. It doesn't need to go anywhere. If it is sustainable we continue. If it is too hot a lot of things die. If it causes air circulation to change, eventually, sooner or later, the air circulation becomes normalized and storm patterns normalize. Just because it is hotter doesn't result in de facto permanently more vicious storms….

Intuitively there seems something wrong about your assertions of heat needing to "go somewhere". Heat in an enclosed environment is simply what it is. It doesn't need to go anywhere.

Actually, the heat does have to go someplace. And that's the general climate system. And changes in weather patterns have been noted for quite some time.

Just because it is hotter doesn't result in de facto permanently more vicious storms….

The science doesn't back that statement. In fact, quite the contrary.

Ace, you're heavy on opinions but light on scientific back-up. Right now, your arguments have all the weight of cotton candy.

I'm not sure who exactly you are citing the 3mm to, but how would you know what the impact 3 mm would be on climate?

mandt2- My bad. Should have cited better. That's from the 'The State of the Climate in 2014', the 25th edition in a peer-reviewed series published annually as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Its available here:

link

What I always ask is why the "Solution" to Global Warming is the EXACT same as the "solution" most global warming advocates have for EVERY real or perceived problem facing mankind.

I also note that even if the US follows their plan to the T, it wouldn't make a difference, as the biggest "offenders" would still continue doing what they do. AS the "Warmers" don't even respond to THIS fact, it's just more evidence that they have an ulterior agenda.

BTW, where IS all that "Green Energy" the US was going to have? Where is that Green Energy economic boom? Where is all the money that was given to green energy interests? (I know about 500 grand of it is in my scientist cousin's bank, Solyndra hired her and paid her 200k a year to do nothing but be a name on a piece of paper to fulfil Gubmint requirements. She literally spent three years at Florida, Pacific and Hawaiian beaches, collecting seaweed. LOL! (she's a hottie, too!)

Smokey- You want to discuss the science, I'm all ears. You want to discuss the public policy response, I have NO interest (and even less in discussing 'deep, dark, LW, anti-capitalist conspiracies'. Those I consign to the tin foil hat brigade). Better yet, take it to the Blue Fez (where it belongs).

BTW, where IS all that "Green Energy" the US was going to have? Where is that Green Energy economic boom?

Did you actually vote for any "green" candidates? Do you support any "green" programs?

There's one answer. Here's another:

link

I saw a movie once where a drunk daddy broke his sons leg by pushing him down the stairs, and then mocked him for being a cripple.

Why does a discussion of the "science" hold any interest unless it is connected to people? And what people say they need to do? And what people do because of the discussion/argument? Without the direct contact to people, all discussion of "the science" loses context and relevancy. You might as well discuss climate change and the resulting weather on Pluto….

I am sure that there is disagreement on this topic of "sudden change" as well. How it affects the climate worldwide. I don't see it myself. So it took say a thousand years to raise the temperature six degrees F. Or it takes fifty years to raise it one or two degrees. What would the resulting long term climate changes be? Warmer for certain. Storm patterns altered. Some places quite inhospitable. Others now benign and life promoting for humans. Population altered for sure. Is any of that a big deal? Something that "we" are supposed to advocate "change" because of?

I'm a smart layman with loads of skepticism. Therefore I do not spend more than enough time to absorb my science through "osmosis". You have your geek graphs and statistics and discussions. These are viewed by people like me as manipulated and prejudiced. Scientists as a group are seen as malleable by the "new facts", whatever those prove to be tomorrow. So we don't see today's "facts" as binding on humanity. Certainly not as a replacement for religion. Some few scientific facts we allow as real. If we didn't, we would be dead.

Claiming that we are soon to be dead because of the world getting warmer smacks of "the sky is falling". Even if every scientist on the planet started screaming that one, I would remain skeptical until empirical evidence became undeniable. Since empirical evidence is mainly localized, mostly within reach of my senses, whatever is rumored to have happened in Africa or Slobovia is not of my concern. And if "you" tell me it is, then "show me"….

And changes in weather patterns have been noted for quite some time.

Well of course, "noted" is the job of weathermen/women and the like. Weather "patterns" are always changing. Just look at S. Cali where it "never rains". The weather pattern is droughts alternating with sudden, vicious deluges. Nasty, entertaining things. Then the thirty foot tall walls of flame come rampaging in from the desert to claim the latest suburban sprawl. And "we" are supposed to be culpable? Oh yes! Our CARS, and the rest of our evil "white man's lifestyle". ETC.

So you spray blame about because scientists claim that this time it is mankind's fault for releasing too much CO2 in too short a time. Therefore we are supposed to stop it? And replace it with what? Oh yes! Just throw money, more taxes at it, and let "them" distribute it to countries to stop them from cutting down the trees and burning the coal. Sure. Like that is going to work ever! LOLz! Amundo. The rape of the West will line a few pocketses and achieve nothing but a lowered standard of living amongst the raped.

Now, you can discuss the "settled science". For all the good/interest that has, severed from real world context….

link

And what will the carbon footprint be of the sayers of doom this time?

Will their excuse be as lame as the last one? The one none of the true believers here want to touch?

IPCC has proven themselves to be liars or hypocrites with that last conference excuse, as previously quoted from their own report.

And no, I'm not looking it up again for you. I've posted it numerous times. Yet you STILL can't answer the simple question can you?

What happened to this from 2008?

At a meeting in the UK in 2008, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, a climate scientist with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), strongly urged businesses to slash employee travel and to fill the void with video conferencing.

Speaking to members of the British Parliment (via video link, of course) at an event called "Is Your Journey Really Necessary?" Pachauri said that in some regions transport accounts for 40% of total emissions (though in the opaque world of greenhouse gas measurement this number is entirely debatable), and that civil aviation is a major contributor.

Video conferencing, he said, "would be of great benefit in reducing and controlling the growth of emissions from aviation." For you and me, I guess, but not the august members of the UN itself.

link

Perhaps they'd be just a bit more convincing if they acted as if they actually believed what they are preaching.

Till then, "For you and me, I guess, but not the august members of the UN itself" tells you all you need to know about the seriousness of the issue to them.

JJ- So its the same old tactics. You can't refute the science (though you have tried and failed so hard), so you attack the messengers.

No matter what you think of the IPCC, or their choice of location for their meeting or whatever else you want to throw up here, the basic science is _still_ true.

So you spray blame about because scientists claim that this time it is mankind's fault for releasing too much CO2 in too short a time. Therefore we are supposed to stop it? And replace it with what? Oh yes! Just throw money, more taxes at it, and let "them" distribute it to countries to stop them from cutting down the trees and burning the coal. Sure. Like that is going to work ever! LOLz! Amundo. The rape of the West will line a few pocketses and achieve nothing but a lowered standard of living amongst the raped.

Well, first, if you care to notice, I've NEVER thrown the blame card around. The rise in GHGs is just the unfortunate byproduct of our industrialization, a byproduct that nobody suspected (since who knew until just a mere 30-40 years ago that the problem existed). Now we know and now we have to deal with it, plain and simple.

As for your 'rape of the west' paranoia: Sorry, I don't deal in tin foil hat conspiracies….

And finally, ace, you once again go long on opinions but short on back-up…

I'm a smart layman with loads of skepticism. Therefore I do not spend more than enough time to absorb my science through "osmosis". You have your geek graphs and statistics and discussions. These are viewed by people like me as manipulated and prejudiced. Scientists as a group are seen as malleable by the "new facts", whatever those prove to be tomorrow. So we don't see today's "facts" as binding on humanity. Certainly not as a replacement for religion. Some few scientific facts we allow as real. If we didn't, we would be dead.

Well, this is the crux of it. First, this shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method (or the 'nuts and bolts' of how science is done). Yes, facts are malleable (example, we don't think the earth is the center of the solar system anymore. Although that was a fact that was overturned in time). And open to challenge. That's how we move forward in our knowledge.

As for 'So we don't see today's "facts" as binding on humanity'. Well, gravity is a well established scientific fact and is certainly binding on humanity. As is the effects of elevated GHGs on the climate.

And about 'Some few scientific facts we allow as real. If we didn't, we would be dead.' Well, you can choose not to believe in whatever you want. But that doesn't change reality one bit. You see, you really don't get to pick and choose which you'll believe and which you don't. Ma Nature doesn't work that way (and can be rather unforgiving when you ignore her).

As for science being a substitute for religion; truly a foolish notion. Both are separate and important in their own individual ways.

The fact they don't believe it tells you how seriously they take it whether true or not.

So which are they? Liars or hypocrites?

I attack the messengers with their own words and actions, which are both a matter of record.

Not a theory.

The fact they don't believe it tells you how seriously they take it whether true or not.

So which are they? Liars or hypocrites?

And this has precisely what impact on the science?

NONE

I attack the messengers with their own words and actions, which are both a matter of record.

No, JJ, you do because you can't refute the science…..

I DON't have to refute anything. It doesn't matter how true the science is if they can't convince the politicians. And they can't convince anyone if their words and behavior clearly demonstrate they don't care.

I'm not trying to dispute the science. I'm demonstrating that the messengers who are supposed to be convincing the politicians are sure going about it in a very strange way.

And you can't refute their words or behavior can you?

IPCC member made the point in 2008. Since then, what have they done to lead the way? Ever increasing carbon footprints for their boondoggle meetings.

How do they get around it? With claims that don't stand up to the level of scrutiny a junior high school student could give.

You disagree? Show how their words and actions are not as I have shown them to be.

You can't.

It is true, a matter of record and their own words and actions.

Pretty hard to get past that, regardless of what the science says. They obviously don't care. Hard to convince anyone on that basis. Science is meaningless when the messengers are liars or hypocrites.

It's a blatant power grab campaign. Fortunately, the very proponents are hypocrites who don't believe their own doom and gloom predictions. They aren't clever enough to restrict themselves and "walk the walk" that they talk. So as I pointed out, "we" won't be listening anytime soon. And without public/popular support, this all goes nowhere, and the earth will morph according to the temperature changes, as it always has….

The earth will morph anyway, regardless of what we do. The "tipping points" have come and gone several times, according to "the science". So we are all "doomed" already. How many times must it be restated? "They" have predicted and passed the "point of no return", and back-pedaled and waffled so much already that nobody takes "them" seriously anymore.

Get ready for some awesome weather. Look at S. Cali recently. Of course, that kind of flashflood is common as desert dirt in that part of the world. But hey, AGW can take the blame for it this time….

And yet the science says otherwise, Mithmee.

Why yes it does when you use made up numbers or change numbers to prove your case.

Why yes it does when you use made up numbers or change numbers to prove your case.

Proof? Otherwise its just opinion….

It's a blatant power grab campaign. Fortunately, the very proponents are hypocrites who don't believe their own doom and gloom predictions. They aren't clever enough to restrict themselves and "walk the walk" that they talk. So as I pointed out, "we" won't be listening anytime soon. And without public/popular support, this all goes nowhere, and the earth will morph according to the temperature changes, as it always has….

I don't whether to laugh or cry at such a statement. So Climate Change is all some power grabbing conspiracy. Right….

As for 'the earth will morph according to the temperature changes, as it always has'; you're half right. It will change, thanks to our pumping more CO2 into the system in timeframe unseen in the past. But the changes may not be to your liking…

"May not". And may not make any real difference either. Humans and our living conditions are very adaptable. The world is always "ending" and beginning.

And AGW is not the conspiracy, it is the casus belli of those who want control. AGW is being coopted by greater powers than science. Those greater powers OWN the science, because it is paid for by them….

"May not". And may not make any real difference either. Humans and our living conditions are very adaptable. The world is always "ending" and beginning

You do know there is a limit to such adaptability? And that may well include the elimination of some high level species? Such as Homo Sapiens?

And AGW is not the conspiracy, it is the casus belli of those who want control. AGW is being coopted by greater powers than science. Those greater powers OWN the science, because it is paid for by them….

NOW I've seen everything….. So its all a deep, dark conspiracy. Right….. As I said, don't know whether to laugh or cry…..

You know, with the likes of THIS comment (and others like it), there really is no point in discussing this subject any further.

Coastal2

I see you are still running away from the "liars and hypocrites" issue. No defense for their nonsense? No explanation as to why they don't believe their own rhetoric?

Science doesn't matter is the messengers are frauds.

They are like having a drunk, chugging down a fifth of liquor while lecturing us about the temperance movement.

" I don't whether to laugh or cry at such a statement. So Climate Change is all some power grabbing conspiracy. Right…."

You are confusing the science with the politics. They are independent from each other. And I've previously provided the link and the quote from the UN official who admitted that the climate issue is not about saving the world, it is about fundamentally changing the world's economic model. Which is a power grabbing conspiracy based on " what is fair" an who pays what and who cuts how much.

Think not? Read the UNs own work on this.

The fact you willfully ignore this fact to mock those who point it out is what is really sad.

JJ

I see you are still running away from the "liars and hypocrites" issue. No defense for their nonsense? No explanation as to why they don't believe their own rhetoric?

I gave you my answer above. No need to repeat it…

You are confusing the science with the politics. They are independent from each other. And I've previously provided the link and the quote from the UN official who admitted that the climate issue is not about saving the world, it is about fundamentally changing the world's economic model. Which is a power grabbing conspiracy based on " what is fair" an who pays what and who cuts how much.

The fact you willfully ignore this fact to mock those who point it out is what is really sad.

Sorry, JJ, not interested in second hand reporting of dark conspiracies/fantasies from those bordering on the tin foil hat brigade. But if it makes you happy to buy into them, fine. Just don't expect others to take them seriously…

Your "answer" was your assessment of my motivation, and did not address at all the issues of the behavior and nonsense being spouted by the IPCC. The issue isn't whether the science is correct or not, isn't what my motivation is or not…it is the behavior and words of the IPCC.

Which you still have not answered.

So are you claiming the quote I provided is inaccurate? Based on what? Not a "dark conspiracy" claim at all. It is a quote of a UN official

Or are you claiming the UN official was lying?

Your "answer" was your assessment of my motivation, and did not address at all the issues of the behavior and nonsense being spouted by the IPCC. The issue isn't whether the science is correct or not, isn't what my motivation is or not…it is the behavior and words of the IPCC.

Which you still have not answered.

NOTHING could be more irrelevant to the discussion of climate change than the above. And it doesn't DESERVE a response. Period.

So are you claiming the quote I provided is inaccurate? Based on what? Not a "dark conspiracy" claim at all. It is a quote of a UN official

Or are you claiming the UN official was lying?

And WHERE is this quote? What is this officials name? Title? Job description? Who does he answer to? And what was the context of the 'supposed' statement? Otherwise, it is as I described it. Period.

There. You have my responses.

NOTHING could be more irrelevant to the discussion of climate change than the above. And it doesn't DESERVE a response. Period.

How can you even make such a statement? The relevance is that the settled science politicians of the IPCC who are supposed to be convincing the politicians of the world of the severity of the problem and the need for immediate drastic action are acting like there is no problem and excusing their bad acting with nonsense.

How credible a messenger does that make them?

It doesn't matter how true the science is if the messengers are liars and hypocrites, or morons, as no one will really take them seriously. That have extreme relevance to the discussion. Not to the science itself but to the "how soon does how much need to be done by whom" part of it.

You were among the ones arguing that it isn't the scientists job to come up with a plan, it was the politicians. These are the guys trying to make the case to the politicians. Seems that makes this extremely relevant, regardless of what you think.

As for the official and her quote, I've provided it more than once in the past and am not your look up machine. Google it yourself. Clever trick though to repeatedly put of commenting on a challenge and then claiming you can't because the specifics aren't laid out for you.

Seems I was banned for typing the phrase "Cargo Cultists" and posting an important editorial from Richard Feynman. It is relevant here because he warned against science that maintained the *form* but not the *substance* of science. He states that essential to science is a form of utter honesty and integrity such that you go where the data takes you and you make clear how your science may be incorrect or incomplete. And this becomes critical when your data, your science may be used by politicians to determine or justify policies.

link

"…For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice."

So now ban away, I suppose I should have been more clear when I posted what I did.