1. Mike Hulme was not and is not a lead author for the IPCC. — Benkei

"I have published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on climate change topics, served as a Lead Author on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in 1996 and 2001..."

https://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf

double-post

Mike Hulme was not and is not a lead author for the IPCC. — Benkei

He was. And I am not interested in getting bogged down in another climate debate. I am simply pointing out that the IPCC is a political body, set up by governments, with a political agenda. Look at it this way: If the IPCC declared that there is no point for governments to enact "climate policy", it would lose its reason to exist. Ever heard of a bureacracy that committed suicide?

Reading from a vast array of biased and unbiased sources can ease the dizzies. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I agree. Here are some quotes for you:

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."
(Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment)

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
(Timothy Wirth, President, UN Foundation)

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
( David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth)

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” (and) “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
(Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change)

“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
(IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer)

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
(Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme)

“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
( U.S. Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, Rio Climate Summit)

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
(former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev, 1996)

“There is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate ‘narrative.’ Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.”
(Dr. Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace)

"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
(Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration Undersecretary of State)

If the IPCC declared that there is no point for governments to enact "climate policy", it would lose its reason to exist. Ever heard of a bureacracy that committed suicide? — Nobeernolife

This is a weak (and not uncynical) argument for bias at the IPCC.

The argument seems to go this way:

1. The methodology of every bureaucracy is dominated by a will to survive.
2. Therefore, a bureaucracy dependent on influencing policy debate will do whatever it takes - lie, mislead, fudge or falsify data - to influence policy debate. Whatever it takes to survive.
3. Any bureaucracy whose survival is dependent on influencing policy debate is not to be trusted.

The argument seems to go this way:

1. The methodology of every bureaucracy is dominated by a will to survive
2. Therefore, a bureaucracy dependent on influencing policy debate will do whatever it takes - lie, mislead, fudge or falsify data - to influence policy debate. Whatever it takes to survive.
3. Any bureaucracy whose survival is dependent on having an influence on policy debate is not to be trusted. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. When you evaluate the statements of a bureaucracy, you should always keep that aspect in mind. E.g. why do you think the military is constantly asking for more money to counter existing or non-existing threats?

you should always keep that aspect in mind. — Nobeernolife

Of course: Let's keep it in mind.

But good-faith research, clarifying the minutia of the bureaucracy in question, is crucial to avoid a broadbrush cynical view of bureaucracy. Not to mention a broadbrush erroneous view of a specific bureaucracy.

There are a zillion bureaucracies and your argument is a very broad brush.

But good-faith research, clarifying the minutia of the bureaucracy in question, is crucial to avoid a broadbrush cynical view of bureaucracy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In this case, we have people from inside the bureaucracy confirming that we should not mistake the IPCC as a scientific body. Did you the quotes I posted above? There are plenty more moments of truth like that.

Did you the quotes I posted above? — Nobeernolife

All of the quotes need to be set in the context of each speaker's personal history and reputation and each speaker's overarching view of climate change.

Where did you find the quotes?

All of the quotes need to be set in the context of each speaker's personal history and reputation — ZzzoneiroCosm

Ah here we go. No argument, so we go straight to attacking the messenger.

the paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215646136_Climate_change_What_do_we_know_about_the_IPCC

The relevant paragraph that doesn't say what nolife wants it to say :

Consensus and Uncertainty

Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a ‘scientific consensus’ around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change. Yet this has been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the IPCC. Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production’) which marginalises dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics (see Edwards & Schneider, 2001; Petersen, 2010) – does not do justice to the process. Consensus-building in fact serves several different goals. As Horst and Irwin (2010) have explained, seeking consensus can be as much about building a community identity – what Haas (1992) refers to as an epistemic community – as it is about seeking the ‘truth’. Equally, as Yearley (2009) explains, IPCC consensus-making is an exercise in collective judgement about subjective (or Bayesian) likelihoods in areas of uncertain knowledge. Consensus-making in the IPCC has been largely driven by the desire to communicate climate science coherently to a wide spectrum of policy users – ‘to construct knowledge’ (Weingart, 1999) - but in so doing communicating uncertainties have been down-played (van der Sluijs, 1998). As Oppenheimer et al. (2007: 1506) remark: “The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as critical to governments as [is] a full exploration of uncertainty.” Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensusmaking can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’. Solomon et al. (2008) offer a robust defence, stating that far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates. This leads onto the question of how uncertainty more generally has been treated across the various IPCC Working Groups. As Ha-Duong et al. (2007) and Swart et al. (2009) explain, despite efforts by the IPCC leadership to introduce a consistent methodology for uncertainty communication (Moss & Schneider, 2000; Manning, 2006), it has in fact been impossible to police. Different Working Groups, familiar and comfortable with different epistemic traditions, construct and communicate uncertainty in different ways. This opens up possibilities for confusion and misunderstanding not just for policy-makers and the public, but among the experts within the IPCC itself (Risbey & Kandlikar, 2007). For Ha-Duong et al. (2007) this diversity is an advantage: “The diverse, multidimensional approach to uncertainty communication used by IPCC author teams is not only legitimate, but enhances the quality of the assessment by providing information about the nature of the uncertainties” (p.10). This position reflects that of others who have thought hard about how best to construct uncertainty for policy-relevant assessments (Van der Sluijs, 2005; Van der Sluijs et al., 2005). For these authors ‘taming the uncertainty monster’ requires combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model-based environmental assessment: the so-called NUSAP (Numerical, Unit, Spread, Assessment, Pedigrees) System (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990). Webster (2009) agrees with regard to the IPCC: “Treatment of uncertainty will become more important than consensus if the IPCC is to stay relevant to the decisions that face us” (p.39). Yet Webster also argues that such diverse forms of uncertainty assessment will require much more careful explanation abouthow different uncertainty metrics are reached; for example the difference between frequentist and Bayesian probabilities and the necessity of expert, and therefore subjective, judgements in any assessment process (see also Hulme, 2009a; Guy & Estrada, 2010). This suggests that more studies such as Petersen’s detailed investigation of the claim about detection and attribution in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Petersen, 2010; see also 2000 and 2006) are to be welcomed. He examines the crafting of this statement in both scientific and policy contexts, explores the way in which the IPCC mobilised Bayesian beliefs and how outside review comments were either resisted or embraced. While he concludes that the IPCC writing team did a reasonable job of reflecting the state of knowledge in this specific area, he is also critical of the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the ways the IPCC, more broadly, handled and presented uncertainty (cf. Swart et al., 2009). Betz (2009) offers a second example of a detailed case study of how the IPCC constructs its knowledge claims, this time a more theoretical and methodological example. Betz contrasts two methodological principles which may guide the construction of the IPCC climate scenario range: modal inductivism and modal falsificationism. He argues that modal inductivism, the methodology implicitly underlying the IPCC assessments, is severely flawed and advocates a radical overhaul of the IPCC practice to embrace modal falsificationism. Equally important for the IPCC is how the uncertainties embedded in its knowledge claims are communicated and received more widely. This too is an area where scholars have been at work. Patt (2007) and Budescu et al. (2009) approach the question empirically and draw upon psychological theory to examine how different forms of uncertainty communication used by the IPCC – for example uncertainties deriving from model differences versus disagreements between experts – alter the perceived reception of respective knowledge claims. Patt (2007) found that these two framings of uncertainty did influence lay perceptions and Budescu et al. found respondents interpreted IPCC’s quantitative uncertainties in ways rather different from that intended by the Assessments. They both call for the social features of uncertainty to be attended to more carefully in future IPCC assessments and suggest some alternative formulations. Schenk and Lensink (2007) and Fogel (2005) examine more precise examples of uncertainty communication from IPCC assessments: uncertainty about future emissions of greenhouse gases and uncertainties in national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions. Schenk and Lensink (2007), for example, suggest improved communication of complex messages from the IPCC through clearer reasoning when communicating with nonscientists, making emissions scenarios explicitly normative and increasing stakeholder participation in scenario development. — Mike hulme

Your complaints about the IPCC are attacks on the messenger as well. You don't want to talk climate change because the evidence for it is overwhelming. So instead you suggest the IPCC cannot be trusted, which has absolutely zero bearing on the veracity of the results of climate science. All the more funny when you do it by quoting someone who believes climate change is real and doesn't support your view of the IPCC.

I thought you required polite considered debate.

So we would should treat the findings of the IPCC with caution, fair enough. Meanwhile California and Australia burn, the UK and Bangladesh and numerous islands flood regularly, southern Europeans die in extreme heat waves. The Greenland ice cap is shown to be irreversibly compromised. I could go on but why bother, we can't trust committees the're nothing more than gravy trains for the so called experts who sit on them.

You know, I have a problem with moss in my lawn. But I wouldn't ask a moss removal expert to deal with it, the're crooked. My neighbour has had a moss man coming twice a year for as long as I can remember and there's still just as much moss as there was five years ago. I think he is secretly spreading the moss, so that there's more work for him next time. If he solved the moss problem, he would be out of a job. I wouldn't let him get his hands on my lawn.

Sure. I was just pointing out that in the source you provided Mike Hulme says he was a lead author.

Ah here we go. No argument, so we go straight to attacking the messenger. — Nobeernolife

First: You ignored my question: "Where did you find the quotes?"

Why did you ignore it?

Second: No one said anything about attacking anyone. That's something you assumed without a lick of evidence. You assumed the intention was to attack. (It would be wise to ask yourself what other assumptions you might be making without a lick of evidence.)

Every quote has a context. A freestanding quote is useless without some knowledge of the person who said it: Their personal history and reputation - what is the specific context of the quote? a speech (to whom; who is the intended audience)? a peer-reviewed scholarly essay? what are the person's credentials? have they said these sorts of things before? have they said things that contradict the quote in question? when was the quote made? what is this person's political affiliation and source of financial wherewithal? etc.

Jesus said: "Give to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar." He must have been a pretty staunch conservative.

what are the person's credentials? — ZzzoneiroCosm

The credentials of the people are given under the quote, and the quotes speak for themselves. I do not have the time to get bogged down here for hours, which would not change your made-up mind anyway.

The credentials of the people are given under the quote — Nobeernolife

Those aren't credentials. Those are titles.

I do not have the time to get bogged down here for hours — Nobeernolife

Exactly. To truly comprehend a subject as sprawling as the climate change debate, hours and hours of research are necessary. So trust comes into play. Do the 97% of scientists who form the scientific consensus on climate research seem more or less trustworthy than Fox News and Donald Trump and friends - the only folks I ever see who question the climate science, and who, as conservative operatives, also happen to have a vested interest in the survival of the fossil-fuel economy?

which would not change your made-up mind anyway — Nobeernolife

It would be silly to try to change my mind. For whatever reason, I trust the scientific consensus. Try to change the scientists' minds.

The credentials of the people are given under the quote — Nobeernolife

For the third time: Where did you find the quotes?

For the second time: Why did you ignore this question the first time and the second time?

The longer you ignore the question of sources, the faster your credibility ebbs.

I’ve read the same well-documented nonsense you have. But then I went further. — NOS4A2

We've noticed.

Yeah, I noticed that later and forgot to correct it. I started writing the initial post by searching for him on the IPCC website and couldn't find him at all.

Dershowitz claims to have proof Obama asked FBI to investigate 'somebody on behalf of George Soros'

“I have some information as well about the Obama administration, which will be disclosed in a lawsuit at some point, but I'm not prepared to disclose it now, about how President Obama personally asked the FBI to investigate somebody on behalf of George Soros, who was a close ally of his," he continued, without naming a specific target.

Dershowitz added, "We've seen this kind of White House influence on the Justice Department virtually in every Justice Department. The difference is this president is much more overt about it. He tweets about it. President Obama whispered to the Justice Department about it. And, I don't think these 1,000 former Justice Department officials would pass the shoe-on-the-other-foot test. Maybe some of them would, but a good many of them wouldn't."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/dershowitz-claims-to-have-proof-obama-asked-fbi-to-investigate-somebody-on-behalf-of-george-soros

Dershowitz has gone full Trumpian.

What about it? It's totally irrelevant Obama was smarter then Trump is. Doesn't make Trump honest, he's still corrupt.

What about it? It's totally irrelevant Obama was smarter then Trump is. Doesn't make Trump honest, he's still corrupt.

I just thought it was an interesting story.

Smart or not, all Obama could do was talk and write speeches. Not very impressive if you ask me.

Trump has been accused of abusing his office and Barr has been asked to resign because opponents allege Trump is influencing Barr. I’m not sure of the veracity of Dershowitz’s claims, but imagine if a foreign billionaire was asking Trump to use the DOJ to investigate someone. It would be explosive and impeachments would immediately commence.

Dershowitz — NOS4A2

Your source isn't reliable. The Washington Examiner.

"Overall, we rate the Washington Examiner Right Biased based on editorial positions that almost exclusively favor the right and Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks."

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a claim is ignored in favor of attacking or championing its source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

genetic fallacy

Cute.

You attack sources constantly (mainstream media) so be sure to remember every time you do it that you're committing the genetic fallacy as you understand it. I'll point it out for you if you forget.

In other words: According to your understanding of the genetic fallacy there can never be such a thing as a disreputable source. Any claim of disrepute would be a case of genetic fallacy.

Again, just shallow silliness.

Have I ever attacked your source? No. Meanwhile you spend energy policing the bias of the source without being able to refute what was written.

Have I ever attacked your source? No. Meanwhile you spend energy policing the bias of the source without being able to refute what was written. — NOS4A2

Just wanted to let you know not to trust what the Washington Examiner puts out.

That’s fair. But then again I don’t trust any news.

Trump riffing on current events.