Come on now, the IPCC was so embarrassed about the models running hot you don’t hear much about the models anymore. The IPCC is more into globalization than taking the heat for biased information.
Thanks for the “Parameters” correction.
If words did not have legal meanings. You couldn’t have a court case. Black’s Law Dictionary will not put climate change in it’s Dictionary of legal meanings.
The baseline that tried to be used was the industrial age. An attempt was made to recreate the temperature of the northern hemisphere industrial age. You can see the problem is obvious. You just can’t use part of the world and say that was the world’s temperature to use as a datum point.
Do you remember some of the stories about the Great Barrier Reef down near Australia. And how the heating oceans and acidification was destroying the reef. If you have got the time, go check on the reef. It is better off now than it ever has been. But they know more now about reefs today. And that is that they grow in cycles.
Hindsight reporting is easy to say after the fact what went on. This was the beginning of the 70s. Newspapers and the Evening News Was the main source of data. The Saturday Evening Post and I believe it was Time magazine was beyond question on any of their reporting. What they said was going to happen was the mouth of the Hudson Bay was kept open by warm Atlantic water. That narrow bit of water was going to freeze and the flow from the Atlantic would cease causing the Hudson Bay to freeze solid and be frozen all year long. This would be the start of the ice sheet and the Ice Age. These actions were to happen quickly.
I agree, a technocratic government system is the greatest thing in the world for the upper caste. Being part of that system would be like being part of the Kingdom ruling the world. And I’m sure having that kind of power made the elite feel like there was nothing they could not do. All this is OK for the elite controlling the technocratic government. But it would destroy the democratic government of America in a few generations. And most likely would end in a civil war. But the republican and Democrat elite were willing to trash America to be an elite.
Look at what Congress did after January 6th. They had fencing and an army to protect them from the people. They knew what the hell they were doing. And they knew they could stop anyone for no reason and put anybody in jail for no reason. We had become a country with the reigning powers pouring lawfare stress over all of America.
Being part of the system meant that you could break any laws and never have to worry about going to jail. You talk about a caste system of government. That is what we have. All you have to do is look at history to understand how the human race deals with power.
The best we could have hoped for is to operate like India or Pakistan.
There’s your problem you deliberate idi@t - newspapers don’t report on the science very accurately - they want to sell copy.
That’s why they created IPCC to sort through the tons of science.
You sell the oil companies intellectual fraud - you are an advocate for low taxes and maximum profit - your brains never get past the “what’s in it for me” stage - to the why is this happening, let us learn about the basic facts stage.
Of course you don’t see a thing. You never do. Blame it all on the oil companies. While you’re backing the IPCC which is connected to the UNFCCC. This is what you’re pushing.
AI - The carbon credit market, including both voluntary and compliance markets, is a rapidly growing area with significant financial implications, with estimates suggesting a market size of $669.37 billion in 2024 and projected to reach $16.38 trillion by 2034.
So, in reality you are backing and promoting a market that is largely unregulated, and without consumer protection standards.
Carbon offset scams exploit the increased demand for climate solutions by offering false or exaggerated claims about carbon reduction projects. These scams often involve selling carbon credits that don’t represent real emissions reductions or that overstate their impact.
While projects could be set up in nearly any country in the world, the carbon credits were issued by the German Environment Agency and could only be used to meet the climate targets of oil companies in Germany.
Many of the industry’s big players, we found, invested in the credits, including Shell , Exxon, Total and BP.
The point being, you are backing and helping the big oil companies. Do you even know that you are doing this?
Of course our overlords and their minions would hate the UNFCCC and do all they can to slander, in their (& Mike Yohe’s) effort to marginalize sober learning about an existentially critical the climate & weather, that every freak’n thing we depend on, depends on:
Google AI overview:
The UNFCCC, or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is an international treaty adopted in 1992 to address climate change, aiming to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Key Points:
Purpose: The UNFCCC’s primary goal is to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system by stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Universal Membership: The Convention has universal membership, with 198 Parties (countries).
Parent Treaty: The UNFCCC is the parent treaty for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement.
Formation: It was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
Entry into Force: The UNFCCC entered into force on March 21, 1994.
Secretariat: The UNFCCC secretariat (UN Climate Change) is the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change, located in Bonn, Germany.
Paris Agreement: The Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change, was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on December 12, 2015.
COP: The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the supreme decision-making body of the Convention, where all Parties review the implementation of the Convention and take decisions.
This is another example of how dependent your arguments are on slandering and misrepresenting and out and out lying.
I’m pushing sober climate education and rational examination - you are pushing one lie after another - and it’s been demonstrated to you many, many time over many many years and like the punch’e dummies, you bound right back - never ever ever learning a thing or admitting how mistaken and fraudulent your claims and arguments are.
You are pushing crazy making and yeah, carbon capture is another example of politician at work - so there you go again, anything, everything, to steer the discussion away from the basic scientific reality.
Regarding IPCC failures:
And that you want to blame on scientists and environmentalists???
In California it is said there has never been a law passed in the last several decades that the trial lawyers were against. The laws passed in California are terribly written with words that do not have solid legal meanings. This results in the understanding that no law is any good until it’s gone to court. Basically, defining the meaning and understanding of the law in a courtroom. That is why a lot of insurance companies with nationwide coverage exempt California coverage. Example, truckers requiring coverage in California, must buy a insurance rider.
When it comes to laws of the land. Dictionaries can define the meanings of words for general use. But in the TITLES of government laws, Words can have specific meanings when it comes to government documents. I’ve lost count of the opinion letters I have paid for to understand government laws in the businesses I’ve been involved with over the years. It would have been nice for all words to have a legal meaning. Didn’t Trump just change the governments meaning of “gender” for the government? The rest of the country is stuck with “a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.”
How many times do you think the term “Climate Change” has been redefined over the last three decades?
And exactly how does that work? Driving a car is backing the oil industry?
Everybody stop driving!!! If you don’t sell your car you are backing the oil industry,
right?
Try comparing all scenarios. Maybe driving a car is a human action and the oil company is backing the consumer. I know I don’t drive my car because of the oil companies. I’d love to have an electric car. But they’re not ready yet, the technology is getting there faster than I thought. I think the cross-country trucks and delivery trucks will be first to make the electric vehicle a fundamental reality. Personally, I think we’ll move to atomic batteries and this whole oil usage will be put in the barn like the horses.
• Maunder Minimum - Dan Lubin (SETI Talks) 
, 
, 