Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[thaibeachlovers]

IPCC reports are not produced by scientists, as a quick look at the IPCC's own process charts clearly demonstrates.

Take AR5, which was finally released in mid-2014. IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay? So that bureaucrats from over 100 countries could haggle for days over every line so that it reflects their own interests, as best as possible.

As an IPCC insider said (answering an internal IPCC survey):

IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle.

An insight into the haggling process can be found at http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12581e.html

You have published ONE singular comment from a unidentified person's feedback involved in the Panel's process and have used it to totally undermine the ENTIRE process of the IPCC. From this ONE SINGULAR comment your view is the process and the thousands of scientists involved in its entirety is totally corrupted.

You are free to invent arguments about things I didn't say and then disagree with them. If that's what makes your day. I'm amazed you forgot to accuse me of being paid by Big Oil or having been brainwashed by Fox News.

Politicians like fighting climate change. It appeals to their egos. It casts them as heroes. It’s more gratifying and glamorous to rail against climate change than to spend one’s time balancing the budget or fixing the school system.

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....."

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........"

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....."

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

Regardless of the scientists guesswork and the reports guestimates, it is up to politicians to implement any action. Given that ALL solutions require sacrifice on the part of the population, it is doubtful that any practical solution will be implemented any time soon.

For Obama to pontificate on GW/ CC while riding AF1 around the world is the height of hypocrisy and shame on him for doing so.

[lifeincnx]

I wish some savvy reporter would ask Marsha Blackburn to define 'global warming' and 'climate change'. I'm willing to bet she cannot.

[boomerangutang]

I don't believe in climate change either. The atmosphere is so huge that all the smoke stacks in china burning for 10 years would be like a pin head in the universe.

It's load of garbage ........ the earth will still be here in 100mil years and the climate may be warmer or cooler as it has been for the last 100mil years.

Have you seen areal photos of Beijing? The whole city is covered by a yellow haze every day of the year. There are relatively few kids in China who have ever seen a blue sky. Yes, the sky is big, but that's not a good premise to base scientific findings on. The Earth's atmosphere's size is finite and can be quantified. Not even Jupiter's atmosphere is infinite.

[pitrevie]

Regardless of the scientists guesswork and the reports guestimates, it is up to politicians to implement any action. Given that ALL solutions require sacrifice on the part of the population, it is doubtful that any practical solution will be implemented any time soon.

For Obama to pontificate on GW/ CC while riding AF1 around the world is the height of hypocrisy and shame on him for doing so.

I agree he should go everywhere on a push bike or better still walk. However it appears that GWB has the drop on Obama even for that and used AF1 far more times for vacations than any other president unless of course you get your information from Fox News and their $200 million a day claptrap.

[up2u2]

I wish some savvy reporter would ask Marsha Blackburn to define 'global warming' and 'climate change'. I'm willing to bet she cannot.

Not a good idea cnx lol

Take a look at this guy trying to get an answer from Congresswoman Blackburn. She would 'talk a leg off a chair' and still not answer the question. Imagine being married too her? Bloody hell. Like a good Republican she gets Benghazi in of course. lol

Unbelievable

[stevenl]

You have published ONE singular comment from a unidentified person's feedback involved in the Panel's process and have used it to totally undermine the ENTIRE process of the IPCC. From this ONE SINGULAR comment your view is the process and the thousands of scientists involved in its entirety is totally corrupted.

You are free to invent arguments about things I didn't say and then disagree with them. If that's what makes your day. I'm amazed you forgot to accuse me of being paid by Big Oil or having been brainwashed by Fox News.

Politicians like fighting climate change. It appeals to their egos. It casts them as heroes. It’s more gratifying and glamorous to rail against climate change than to spend one’s time balancing the budget or fixing the school system.

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....."

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........"

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....."

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

Regardless of the scientists guesswork and the reports guestimates, it is up to politicians to implement any action. Given that ALL solutions require sacrifice on the part of the population, it is doubtful that any practical solution will be implemented any time soon.

For Obama to pontificate on GW/ CC while riding AF1 around the world is the height of hypocrisy and shame on him for doing so.

Stop pointing at others and take action yourself would be much better.

[RickBradford]

@up2u2

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

Your argument, directly quoted:

You have published ONE singular comment from a unidentified person's feedback involved in the Panel's process and have used it to totally undermine the ENTIRE process of the IPCC. From this ONE SINGULAR comment your view is the process and the thousands of scientists involved in its entirety is totally corrupted.

Please point out where I have:

a) said that the IPCC process is 'totally corrupted' by the 'singular comment'

b ) suggested that 'thousands of scientists' are 'totally corrupted'

c) said that the one comment 'totally undermine the entire process of the IPCC'

You have falsely ascribed these views to me, in order to create a bogus argument.

You can either go back and read what I actually wrote, or carry on creating fables, up to you.

Edited October 4, 2015 by RickBradford

[up2u2]

@up2u2

Your argument, directly quoted:

You have published ONE singular comment from a unidentified person's feedback involved in the Panel's process and have used it to totally undermine the ENTIRE process of the IPCC. From this ONE SINGULAR comment your view is the process and the thousands of scientists involved in its entirety is totally corrupted.

Please point out where I have:

a) said that the IPCC process is 'totally corrupted' by the 'singular comment'

b ) suggested that 'thousands of scientists' are 'totally corrupted'

c) said that the one comment 'totally undermine the entire process of the IPCC'

You have falsely ascribed these views to me, in order to create a bogus argument.

You can either go back and read what I actually wrote, or carry on creating fables, up to you.

True I think the actual unnamed quote you used to underpin your attacks on the efficacy of the IPCC didn't hold water.

Below is a far more articulate in rebutting your unfounded statements towards the IPCC reports:

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....." ( well they are actually)

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........" (doesn't understand the 'Draft Report' process)

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....." (Totally incorrect assumptions)

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

[RickBradford]

True I think the actual unnamed quote you used to underpin your attacks on the efficacy of the IPCC didn't hold water.

Man up. You accused me of claiming that the one comment I quoted suggested that 'thousands of scientists' were 'totally corrupted'.

That was an utterly false accusation.

[up2u2]

True I think the actual unnamed quote you used to underpin your attacks on the efficacy of the IPCC didn't hold water.

Man up. You accused me of claiming that the one comment I quoted suggested that 'thousands of scientists' were 'totally corrupted'.

That was an utterly false accusation.

When you attempt to discredit the IPCC that is what you are doing. Trying to discredit thousands of scientists across the world. Did you think the IPCC was made up of Plumbers?

[RickBradford]

True I think the actual unnamed quote you used to underpin your attacks on the efficacy of the IPCC didn't hold water.

Man up. You accused me of claiming that the one comment I quoted suggested that 'thousands of scientists' were 'totally corrupted'.

That was an utterly false accusation.

When you attempt to discredit the IPCC that is what you are doing. Trying to discredit thousands of scientists across the world. Did you think the IPCC was made up of Plumbers?

That is arrant nonsense. You still haven't bothered to read what I wrote. Or you can't understand it. I'm not sure which I prefer.

My statement, for the final time, was that because of the inevitable processes of the IPCC, the science and the politics are irrevocably entangled, to the detriment of the science and the IPCC itself.

Carry on creating fairy stories if you wish -- they go down well among climate change zealots.

[up2u2]

That is arrant nonsense. You still haven't bothered to read what I wrote. Or you can't understand it. I'm not sure which I prefer.

My statement, for the final time, was that because of the inevitable processes of the IPCC, the science and the politics are irrevocably entangled, to the detriment of the science and the IPCC itself.

Carry on creating fairy stories if you wish -- they go down well among climate change zealots.

You clearly don't understand the IPCC process. I read precisely what you posted and showed why it was inaccurate. The IPCC doesn't come up with the results that suit your political position so you attempt to discredit them even when it is obvious you are not aware of their procedures. The science and politics being irrevocably entangled is in your mind only.

Here are your statements and why they are inaccurate:

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....." ( well they are actually)

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........" (doesn't understand the 'Draft Report' process)

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....." (Totally incorrect assumptions)

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Edited October 4, 2015 by up2u2

[thaibeachlovers]

You are free to invent arguments about things I didn't say and then disagree with them. If that's what makes your day. I'm amazed you forgot to accuse me of being paid by Big Oil or having been brainwashed by Fox News.

Politicians like fighting climate change. It appeals to their egos. It casts them as heroes. It’s more gratifying and glamorous to rail against climate change than to spend one’s time balancing the budget or fixing the school system.

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....."

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........"

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....."

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

Regardless of the scientists guesswork and the reports guestimates, it is up to politicians to implement any action. Given that ALL solutions require sacrifice on the part of the population, it is doubtful that any practical solution will be implemented any time soon.

For Obama to pontificate on GW/ CC while riding AF1 around the world is the height of hypocrisy and shame on him for doing so.

Stop pointing at others and take action yourself would be much better.

You didn't read another post of mine where I said what I do, and my suggestions.

Anyway, I don't think it can be changed, so I have no need to do anything, though I do, in fact try to cut down on pollution.

However, plenty of people on here saying that "something" must be done, but have no ideas, and I bet they still fly, drive fossil fuelled cars and use electricity generated by oil.

If one actually believes in the government bs, it behoves one to start taking action.

Edited October 4, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[RickBradford]

The science and politics being irrevocably entangled is in your mind only.

No, it's in the IPCC documentation of their work processes.

* Author teams compile a First Order Draft (scientists)

* Expert reviewers review First Order Draft (scientists)

* Author teams meet twice to re-draft chapters taking account of expert comments to produce a Second Order Draft (scientists)

* Experts and governments review Second Order Draft (scientists and bureaucrats)

* Author teams consider Second Order Draft comments and produce a Final Order Draft and a draft Summary for Policymakers (SPM) (scientists)

* Governments review Final Order Draft and SPM (bureaucrats)

* Author teams meet just prior to an approval plenary session to consider final government comments on the SPM and prepare suggested amendments if necessary (scientists)

* Government representatives work through the (revised) SPM with IPCC authors on a line-by-line basis (bureaucrats with scientists)

You can't get much more entangled than that.

Edited October 4, 2015 by RickBradford

[stevenl]

Regardless of the scientists guesswork and the reports guestimates, it is up to politicians to implement any action. Given that ALL solutions require sacrifice on the part of the population, it is doubtful that any practical solution will be implemented any time soon.

You are free to invent arguments about things I didn't say and then disagree with them. If that's what makes your day. I'm amazed you forgot to accuse me of being paid by Big Oil or having been brainwashed by Fox News.

Politicians like fighting climate change. It appeals to their egos. It casts them as heroes. It’s more gratifying and glamorous to rail against climate change than to spend one’s time balancing the budget or fixing the school system.

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....."

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........"

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....."

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

For Obama to pontificate on GW/ CC while riding AF1 around the world is the height of hypocrisy and shame on him for doing so.

Stop pointing at others and take action yourself would be much better.

You didn't read another post of mine where I said what I do, and my suggestions.

Anyway, I don't think it can be changed, so I have no need to do anything, though I do, in fact try to cut down on pollution.

However, plenty of people on here saying that "something" must be done, but have no ideas, and I bet they still fly, drive fossil fuelled cars and use electricity generated by oil.

If one actually believes in the government bs, it behoves one to start taking action.

Yes,I also remember that one, you drive a small car.

Providing you're doing this for GW reasons, you're contradicting yourself.

[thaibeachlovers]

Regardless of the scientists guesswork and the reports guestimates, it is up to politicians to implement any action. Given that ALL solutions require sacrifice on the part of the population, it is doubtful that any practical solution will be implemented any time soon.

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....."

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........"

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....."

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

For Obama to pontificate on GW/ CC while riding AF1 around the world is the height of hypocrisy and shame on him for doing so.

Stop pointing at others and take action yourself would be much better.

You didn't read another post of mine where I said what I do, and my suggestions.

Anyway, I don't think it can be changed, so I have no need to do anything, though I do, in fact try to cut down on pollution.

However, plenty of people on here saying that "something" must be done, but have no ideas, and I bet they still fly, drive fossil fuelled cars and use electricity generated by oil.

If one actually believes in the government bs, it behoves one to start taking action.

Yes,I also remember that one, you drive a small car.

Providing you're doing this for GW reasons, you're contradicting yourself.

I do ZERO for GW reasons. I drive a small car because large ones are wasteful of petrol for one person, and I do want to cut down on pollution. Desiring to reduce pollution is NOT the same as trying to reverse GW, which I believe is never going to be possible, if in fact it does happen, and the jury is out on that.

[stevenl]

Stop pointing at others and take action yourself would be much better.

I have no idea where I have 'invented an argument':

"....IPCC reports are not produced by scientists....."

I hate to break it to you but the IPCC has every type of scientist stacked to the rafters. They not only rely on peer reviewed scientific research and literature but due to the scientific credentials of the various Working Groups they can also accept non peer reviewed research and literature and this is because the IPCC peer review process is far more stringent and rigorous than the general peer review within the scientific community. The IPCC engages the leading minds in science from around the World. It is totally bizarre to suggest IPCC reports are not produced by scientists. The entire genesis of their reports is science and to achieve this the reviewers must be scientists with an absolute, indepth knowledge of the science.

".......IPCC personnel (the scientists) had finished the document 4 months earlier. Why the delay?........"

This is pretty straight forward. The IPCC releases a 'Draft Report' this is then published and ALL stakeholders are invited to review the Draft Report for errors and omissions. Their is a kind of IPCC hotline set up for people who wish to make 'reports'. The various Working Groups get busy as all reports must be investigated and either upheld or dismissed.

I can understand a scientist involved in this rigorous review and also the discussions on the requirement for the IPCC to communicate the mitigation advice to politicians. Most scientists I know have absolutely no interest in the politics on the science of GW / CC. "Leave me out of this political rubbish let me get back to doing science." Perfectly understandable.

"......IPCC reports are no more scientific than the IPCC is a scientific body; that is, the science and the politics are almost impossible to untangle....."

I would consider the IPCC has more peer review scientific 'firepower' than any scientific institution in the World. They have more than enough forensic Working Groups to untangle the science from the politics.

Politicians would prefer to ignore GW / CC because it effects their budget income streams and effects their major election campaign contributors would be more accurate.

For Obama to pontificate on GW/ CC while riding AF1 around the world is the height of hypocrisy and shame on him for doing so.

You didn't read another post of mine where I said what I do, and my suggestions.

Anyway, I don't think it can be changed, so I have no need to do anything, though I do, in fact try to cut down on pollution.

However, plenty of people on here saying that "something" must be done, but have no ideas, and I bet they still fly, drive fossil fuelled cars and use electricity generated by oil.

If one actually believes in the government bs, it behoves one to start taking action.

Yes,I also remember that one, you drive a small car.

Providing you're doing this for GW reasons, you're contradicting yourself.

I do ZERO for GW reasons. I drive a small car because large ones are wasteful of petrol for one person, and I do want to cut down on pollution. Desiring to reduce pollution is NOT the same as trying to reverse GW, which I believe is never going to be possible, if in fact it does happen, and the jury is out on that.

So my previous statement was correct, you do nothing.

[arjunadawn]

A Vicar of the christ or of the socialist left? Its hardly coincidence this pontiff joins the left on climate change and also on A, B, C, D, E... etc of the uber militant theology playbook. This clearly defines this pope as a secular player, and incidentally the holy see. Does the pope have a valid voice on climate change as the head of a large religion can only be gleaned when considered in context of his other, consistent, near talking points affection for socialist redistribution doctrines. The apostasy of the church 1700 years ago was rebuked and the holy roman emperor and papal authority forever assigned back to its rightful kingdom some hundreds of years ago. Meddling in global secular affairs in the 21st century paints the pope as an usurper, an agent of revitalized roman rule even- hardly a legitimacy we should extend to someone who believes he is authorized by a person in the clouds.

The climate change issue thus reflects the total pope, and the total pope is a water boy for We Are The World type politics. Very secular, very corporeal, very earthly. His kingdom is supposed to be of another world, not transnational politics. If his station is by virtue of the holy ghost, al quds, then clearly climate change and the social machinations he insinuates himself into belong to Caesar, not Jehovah! This pope is a fraud and a threat to humanity. He deserves no berth because he believes something. He lost that presumptive respect when he left the cloth for the earth.

[thaibeachlovers]

You didn't read another post of mine where I said what I do, and my suggestions.

Anyway, I don't think it can be changed, so I have no need to do anything, though I do, in fact try to cut down on pollution.

However, plenty of people on here saying that "something" must be done, but have no ideas, and I bet they still fly, drive fossil fuelled cars and use electricity generated by oil.

If one actually believes in the government bs, it behoves one to start taking action.

Yes,I also remember that one, you drive a small car.

Providing you're doing this for GW reasons, you're contradicting yourself.

I do ZERO for GW reasons. I drive a small car because large ones are wasteful of petrol for one person, and I do want to cut down on pollution. Desiring to reduce pollution is NOT the same as trying to reverse GW, which I believe is never going to be possible, if in fact it does happen, and the jury is out on that.

So my previous statement was correct, you do nothing.

While I believe CC is indeed happening, I also believe that nothing that can be done by mankind will change it back to what it was 30 years ago, so why would I do anything?

For starters, there are twice as many people now as back then, all polluting away. That's not going to change so any politician that says it can be is doing what all politicians do best- lying.

[up2u2]

While I believe CC is indeed happening, I also believe that nothing that can be done by mankind will change it back to what it was 30 years ago, so why would I do anything?

For starters, there are twice as many people now as back then, all polluting away. That's not going to change so any politician that says it can be is doing what all politicians do best- lying.

Well done tbl you have made it to Stage 4.

The five stages of Climate Denial:

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2 Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

[thaibeachlovers]

While I believe CC is indeed happening, I also believe that nothing that can be done by mankind will change it back to what it was 30 years ago, so why would I do anything?

For starters, there are twice as many people now as back then, all polluting away. That's not going to change so any politician that says it can be is doing what all politicians do best- lying.

Well done tbl you have made it to Stage 4.

The five stages of Climate Denial:

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2 Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

Crikey, talk about being wilfully blind.

1. I said in the post THAT YOU QUOTED that I believe CC is happening.

2. I have said I don't know if we are or not. Not yet proven one way or another.

2. ( you made TWO twos )????????????

3. Never said it's not a problem.

4. I'm still waiting for someone to put forward an idea of how the problem can be solved- so far there is a resounding silence on solutions, other than "renewable energy" which only provides 10% of requirements and increased/ new taxes.

5. Better believe it. It was too late once world population passed 3 billion.

[up2u2]

While I believe CC is indeed happening, I also believe that nothing that can be done by mankind will change it back to what it was 30 years ago, so why would I do anything?

For starters, there are twice as many people now as back then, all polluting away. That's not going to change so any politician that says it can be is doing what all politicians do best- lying.

Well done tbl you have made it to Stage 4.

The five stages of Climate Denial:

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2 Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

Crikey, talk about being wilfully blind.

1. I said in the post THAT YOU QUOTED that I believe CC is happening.

2. I have said I don't know if we are or not. Not yet proven one way or another.

2. ( you made TWO twos )????????????

3. Never said it's not a problem.

4. I'm still waiting for someone to put forward an idea of how the problem can be solved- so far there is a resounding silence on solutions, other than "renewable energy" which only provides 10% of requirements and increased/ new taxes.

5. Better believe it. It was too late once world population passed 3 billion.

Yep, there is nothing we can do and it's all too late so best not do anything.

It is described as a 'Contrarian' position in order to do nothing and take no action. Contrarians feel all 'warm and fuzzy' inside as they proudly confess GW is happening, CC will occur, there is a scientific consensus, it's a terrible problem but alas there is nothing we can do.

I find it a real depressing defeatist attitude. It isn't an option for me as it is not in my nature to accept defeat. Particularly as there is a wealth of information that explains the way forward. I actually see GW / CC as the most important and exciting future mankind has ever embarked upon. New technologies that are only limited by our collective imaginations, more innovation and wealth the world has ever witnessed and most importantly a world that can truly support an ever increasing population.

[thaibeachlovers]

While I believe CC is indeed happening, I also believe that nothing that can be done by mankind will change it back to what it was 30 years ago, so why would I do anything?

For starters, there are twice as many people now as back then, all polluting away. That's not going to change so any politician that says it can be is doing what all politicians do best- lying.

Well done tbl you have made it to Stage 4.

The five stages of Climate Denial:

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists

Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause

Stage 2 Consensus Denial

Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem

Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It

Stage 5: It's too Late

Crikey, talk about being wilfully blind.

1. I said in the post THAT YOU QUOTED that I believe CC is happening.

2. I have said I don't know if we are or not. Not yet proven one way or another.

2. ( you made TWO twos )????????????

3. Never said it's not a problem.

4. I'm still waiting for someone to put forward an idea of how the problem can be solved- so far there is a resounding silence on solutions, other than "renewable energy" which only provides 10% of requirements and increased/ new taxes.

5. Better believe it. It was too late once world population passed 3 billion.

Yep, there is nothing we can do and it's all too late so best not do anything.

It is described as a 'Contrarian' position in order to do nothing and take no action. Contrarians feel all 'warm and fuzzy' inside as they proudly confess GW is happening, CC will occur, there is a scientific consensus, it's a terrible problem but alas there is nothing we can do.

I find it a real depressing defeatist attitude. It isn't an option for me as it is not in my nature to accept defeat. Particularly as there is a wealth of information that explains the way forward. I actually see GW / CC as the most important and exciting future mankind has ever embarked upon. New technologies that are only limited by our collective imaginations, more innovation and wealth the world has ever witnessed and most importantly a world that can truly support an ever increasing population.

You misunderstand my position. It's not that I'm giving up, it's that I don't believe in the ability to do anything about it, so why should I do anything? Your viewpoint seems to be that we should all get stressed out about something that may not even happen, even though there is ZERO that we can do about it anyway.

WHAT new technologies? There is zero being done that will actually change anything. Hybrid cars and wind turbines are minor irrelevances.

Now, if they came up with a ginormous factory that removed CO2/ methane and stored it, that would be exciting.

People are more interested in Bieber than they are in GW, and the US president certainly doesn't do more than talk a load of hot air about the subject before riding in his mega vehicle convoy to AF1 so he can have another ride on the taxpayer before he loses the lovely toy next year. How many politicians cutting back on anything- NONE. I think they must know something.

[Somtamme]

What can be done? Minor irrelevances? All member states in Europe are working towards the binding 2020 target, to obtain 20% energy from renewable sources. Binding means just that. With binding targets come with it cost incentives, as failing Govt's i.e. The Public get fined for non-compliance. Like I said in earlier post, much more can be done especially small public micro-hydro schemes etc.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/16/uk-misses-eus-interim-renewables-target

[RickBradford]

Yes, minor irrelevancies, when you consider that:

* India, already the world’s third largest CO2 emitter, is now planning to double its coal production by 2020.

* China, easily the world’s largest CO2 emitter, is planning to build 363 new coal-fired power stations, adding 50 per cent to the world’s coal-powered electricity.

* Japan is providing something it hilariously calls 'climate funding', which will finance the building of over 1000 coal-fired power plants in Asia.

And they are not going to stop because some self-aggrandising Western politicians want to "save the planet". Even if the whole EU shut down overnight, it would make no difference.

In political terms, the battle to "save the planet" has been lost already -- assuming, that is, that you think the planet needs saving.

[up2u2]

Excuses excuses excuses to do nothing. Oh ye of little faith. lol

Research on Atomic Fuel Cell technology is the one I like. A small cube the size of a Rubik's Cube powers your car for 12 months. No need to keep filling up with Arab Oil or filthy polluting Shale Oil. A cube the size of about four Rubik's Cubes powers your whole house for 12 months. Just plug in a new one every 12 months and your good to go. Have a few shares in the Company that makes that technology fly and you're on easy street for life.

[up2u2]

Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World?

As Jonathan Chait wrote of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s proposals to eliminate all significant American national climate policies,

"....In any other democracy in the world, a Jeb Bush would be an isolated loon, operating outside the major parties, perhaps carrying on at conferences with fellow cranks, but having no prospects of seeing his vision carried out in government. But the United States is different. Here in America, ideas like Bush’s fit comfortably within one of the two major political parties. Indeed, the greatest barrier to Bush claiming his party’s nomination is the quite possibly justified sense that he is too sober and moderate to suit the GOP......"

Full Article

Also:

Batstrand 2015

A paper published in the journal Politics and Policy by Sondre Båtstrand at the University of Bergen in Norway compared the climate positions of conservative political parties around the world. Båtstrand examined the platforms or manifestos of the conservative parties from the USA, UK, Norway, Sweden, Spain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany. He found that the US Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change and efforts to become the party of climate supervillains.

So Congresswoman Blackburn is for from the only Climate Denier in the Republican Party. Seems to be a part of their DNA. Or is it more about who funds their Party?

[RickBradford]

Excuses excuses excuses to do nothing. Oh ye of little faith. lol

Research on Atomic Fuel Cell technology is the one I like.<snip>

Well, they'd better bring it to market pretty soon, as we don't have much time left, apparently:

• The Pope (remember him?) recently said that 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth has described Obama’s second term as “the last chance we have" to avoid ruination

Prince Charles said in 2009 that we only had 96 months to save the planet (23 left, and counting)

It was on May 13 last year that French foreign minister told John Kerry "“we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.” (That expired 2 weeks ago).

NASA GISS head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” (Aaaaargh, doomed again.)

And finally, Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the IPCC said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” (OK, it's too late.)

And Bob Geldof says humanity will be extinct by 2030 because of global warming, so we need to get our skates on.

[up2u2]

Obama Says Paris Climate Talks Bound to ‘Fall Short’

"...Scientists say global warming needs to be limited to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to avoid devastating droughts and rising sea levels.

Countries are submitting pledges to cut emissions ahead of the U.N. summit. So far, those pledges are estimated to limit warming to 3 degrees Celsius.

Obama said "a percent here or a percent there" in pledged cuts "is not going to be a deal breaker," but said it was critical to set up a system to require countries to review their pledges every five years and continue to make cuts after the Paris talks conclude.

"The key for Paris is just to make sure that everybody is locked in, saying, 'We're going to do this,'" Obama said in the interview, which was conducted on Sept. 1 in Kotzebue, Alaska, a small town north of the Arctic circle....."

Obama interview

[RickBradford]

Paris Climate Talks 2015, an echo of Britain 1940:

"Never in the field of human bureaucracy have so many people wasted so much money to assemble and achieve so little and claim they have achieved so much."

If even the Alarmist-in-Chief is dissing the talks a month before they start, the whole thing is guaranteed to be a fiasco, albeit one peppered with upbeat press releases and noble activists demonstrating on behalf of their pampered egos.

Cancel the whole thing. The national "pledges" , risible as they are, have been made already. Does the world really need another speech from Arnold Schwarzenegger?