I’m also for that.

It’s still up right now, they plan to kill it by 2024 and YTMP will supposedly be online by then. I suppose this has to do with reallocating their developers and avoiding redundant apps. Not that they’re consistent with the latter.

It’s not like podcast players are particularly complex to build and maintain, so they don’t require that much cashflow. Podbean sustains itself quite well with the odd image ad and AntennaPod is FOSS. I think the problem is more the opposite, since competition is so easy and monetising it would suck interest out of it, Google has no interest in actually competing. Which is why they’re trying to build their own walled garden with uploading your podcasts only directly to YouTube, RSS feeds be damned.

deleted by creator

My uninformed opinion on this is that he is so immensely rich that Twitter doesn’t really need to be profitable in the long term anyway. Kinda like how YouTube usually operates at loss, but on Hitler’s drug cocktail. It may bite him in the ass eventually because his whole house of cards of “real life Tony Stark” seems to be waning, but I think he’s about as likely to become bankrupt as Yankee student loans are to be forgiven.

I don’t know the internals of Bing, but they have some triggers which themselves seem to be made with NLP. They use it a lot to fetch web info. That means that if the model somehow produces some creative version of a crime that doesn’t get caught, it’ll just send.

I think this is why Bing sometimes refuses to continue the conversation, or ChatGPT will flag its own text as against their terms sometimes. But yeah, they definitely can encourage how to crime sometimes, I’ve made ChatGPT explicitly tell me how to replicate some crimes like the Armin Meiwes cannibalism one while bored.

They aren’t “programmed” to do something, they just produce likely text. If it somehow “learned” from portions of the data to threaten to dox people in circumstances like this, it just replicates that. The programmers themselves likely never saw that portion of the corpus with 4chan bickering, since the dataset is usually impossibly large.

First of all, thanks for the great work!

How’s the onboarding of the new contributors going? I assume suddenly getting a huge influx of eager contributors might create a lot of fun “problems” that software developers don’t usually get in their day jobs.

Related to that, besides the contributor docs on join-lemmy, is there any recommended reading before getting down to work on starting to contribute (already made or in the works)? I’ve been looking into helping out and getting better at Rust in the process.

I’m not in the mood for stuff, so I’ll be brief.

Those « historical and material reasons » you speak of aren’t justification enough in light of their recent actions. It wasn’t even their seat, but the ussr’s. Which they are not the continuation of in any real way.

One of the country with the most nukes. It’s not about deserving or justifying anything, it’s because either Russia is talking in there, or they’re on the outside looking in. I don’t think any nuclear superpower should be on the outside looking in. The USA comment was made in jest because they have by far done worse crimes than Russia worldwide.

I’m a pacifist, but, and I cannot believe I am saying this, you can’t use a ceasefire against someone unilaterally invading another sovereign nation. Does this actually need to be stated?

I also can’t believe you’re saying this as it is so obviously wrong. By that measure every single American settler state should be militarily opposed by their original nations. Of course they don’t do it though, because at this point this level of moral stubbornness and lack of pragmatism would be self-genocidal.

Democracy should not depend on blind trust of public officials, not matter how well-intentioned.

This whole thing is completely irrelevant since you probably think the exact same thing of every other security council member. I can’t find a single polling on the Ukraine situation in Brasil, probably because we generally don’t care that much if Europeans are killing Europeans in Europe. That’s their problem not our problem and his inaction there at least represents our lack of interest. I would rather have a communist proletarian government (as you probably can tell), but to make this about Lula in a discussion about the security council reeks of European.

I am personally quite worried that lula would express some opinions that show a clear lack of solidarity for the ukrainian people

That’s where you’re mistaken, there’s solidarity, we send a lot of aid and the main foreign policy on that area is for an immediate unconditional ceasefire. This is probably the point where you’re going to reply with “but a ceasefire is unrealistic!” and that’s the part where Lula and NATO disagree on what will save the most Ukrainian/Russian lives.

It’s no coincidence that there has been increased activity around taiwan. It’s also no coincidence that far-right populists have been having their way in the ballot box in many countries. And it’s no coincidence that there have been putches in central africa, which, mind you, are supported by wagner mercenaries, and we have seen russian flags fly there.

Yes, Lula wanting a ceasefire and not wanting in on this war is what caused all of this. Not even going to explore the differences of all those events because if you come here to try and peg this on a completely unrelated Brazilian president just because he doesn’t support your pet war, you probably don’t care that much about those events either.

True solidarity is solidarity everywhere, because true authoritarianism is increased vulnerability to further authoritarianism everywhere.

Which is why we should dismantle the USA and EU since they’re the most authoritarian authorities to ever author authoritarianisms. True solidarity is solidarity everywhere, where was that solidarity during the 2015 coup in Brazil from Ukraine or your other favourite countries?

Does that mean my demand should be taken seriously?

Yes, it means that I’m aware of your demand and that I choose not to comply because you haven’t provided enough justifications. On the other hand I’m de-escalating the situation by showing how the flaws in your reasoning. NATO could’ve done the same thing, but instead they chose to pretend the coup was a revolution, and all is right in the world. And you are now choosing to not read all the information which I provided, then throwing your arms to the sky and proclaiming that “there’s no such information.”

Except their critical view is being twisted by state propaganda.

So is ours. Welcome to the internet where bourgeois newspapers do their darnedest to control the narratives. However you don’t need to “fully reject” the outlets much as I haven’t “fully rejected” mnsbc or other USA news there, just read them critically. They still have the internet and a lot of them speak English, so if they want they can check multiple sources, which is how you actually develop critical views, not by just discarding the ones you don’t trust 100% percent. You may notice I didn’t outright discard any of your (rare) sources.

What grievances? The ones you mentioned or the ones Putin mentioned? Because you brought up slightly difference grievances than Putin.

You might want to elaborate on that. Since I’m not the President of Russia, I think you should go with the Putin ones of blocking Ukraine from NATO, ending the Donbass war and removing the Nazis from government. It’s all in the speech, if you read it.

And the second question is how is NATO supposed to address them?

Read above, but I’m also not the French ambassador so they could think of clever compromises too, so long as they actually acknowledged the Russian moral concerns. They didn’t even go that far. (though I could be wrong there, fetch me a source disproving this, will ya).

The one about nukes isn’t actually related to NATO either, it’s related to the countries that signed the Budapest memorandum.

Those weapons would’t be developed locally, they’d come from the USA as has been happening in other EU countries. A simple official statement “no, we won’t give them nukes” would’ve been cool I think. Obviously they didn’t do it because, again, this war has been a long time coming and NATO wanted it. Ukraine is the one paying the price.

Where precisely did NATO itself escalate the issue.

Read the sources, you’ll see that the Maidan coup was backed by NATO, that they have been supplying weapons for the war on Donbass, and that right now they are providing material support for Ukraine, which is not (and probably will never be) a NATO country. There are leaked calls in which US diplomats basically choose who should become prime minister, the previous spitballing of nukes and now even the destruction of Nordstream and the providing of cluster munitions. Since you’re not bothering to check the sources I’ll only provide the ones you ask for.

It’s entirely unrealistic to demand NATO stop it’s open door policy in regards to Ukraine, demand NATO forces out of NATO countries and demand that NATO countries themselves refuse to support Ukraine.

Not really, Ukraine is not in NATO so they could stop all of those things there. In fact it’s possible they stop doing it in a while after this failed counter-offensive of their own volition. It is at least less unrealistic than the Ukrainian government demand that the Russian forces need to pack it up and go home, abandoning all of their costly victories in the war, in order for there to be any peace talks. Always remember that this support started with the Donbass war which has killed thousands and displaced millions, and even Zelenskyy himself has said it was a huge mistake.

That’s an interesting thing to say, because most vocal Russians on Reddit actually claimed to be against the war and blamed “the west” for demonizing Russian people for supporting the war. I agree that they’re human too but clearly the support is not as clear as you make it seem to be.

Oh wow, Russians on reddit, a website that literally banned Genzedong for being critically supportive of the SMO. That certainly doesn’t include any biases in your anecdotal experience that need to be accounted for. Apparently the support public opinion on Putin is up since the beginning of the war, but I don’t really like statista as a source and search engines are flooded with “Americans think Russia bad” NYT articles so I’m not bothering with that. Feel free to find better sources that give more foundation to your experience, but the proxy speculation I was using for the support is that the Russian military has spent the past 18 months at war while their country receives an absurd amount of sanctions. This is hard to maintain without public support, but I could be wrong.

The rest of the comment is not relevant to the discussion.

The rest of my comment is very relevant to the discussion because apparently you seem to think that providing sources and discussing on an internet forum is “disinformation,” which I think is why you don’t provide any yourself. I’m sorry to tell you, but if you come here saying nonsense and people provide counterarguments with evidence backing them, you’re just wasting everybody’s time with your speculations and hearsay if you don’t respond on their level. You should probably read before you write.

Remove an imperialist warmongering nation

By that I hope you mean the USA, the world’s leading imperialist nation. Brasil has been so aligned with “western” interests that they had some fashy president until last year who sold a lot of our industry to gringos of the north for discount prices. Just because Lula is a bit different and a complete pacifist, doesn’t mean the country is free of imperialism at all, just look at the headlines of acquisitions of land by foreign-owned corporations to exploit our resources. Russia is in there for historical and material reasons and to remove them from the council would only serve to discredit the same council’s representation power. It should be expanded to include Brasil without downgrading anybody.

But his take is still insane and naive

Care to elaborate or should we just take your word that “demanding a ceasefire” is naïve?

and the brasilian people deserve better than « not bolsonaro » as the only option.

How’s that UN’s problem? Or related to this at all? Although I agree, I don’t see why this is being brought up here when Ukraine’s war wasn’t even an issue in the election.

but he’s not being a leader on the world stage here

He’s being a leader. He’s on the world stage. Pedantism aside, this is not about domestic policy, it’s specifically about Brasil’s opinion on this war, which is that it should be stopped ASAP. I have no idea what you’re even trying to say other than randomly spouting whatever little you know of Brasil, and pretending that somehow discredits one of the biggest countries in the world.

I think it’s pretty obvious you take everything Russia says at face value

No, but I acknowledge that Russia has demands, and has had those demands ever since before the war. Also most of the sources I provided were from US-based outlets so claiming that it comes straight from Russia is misleading.

it doesn’t even matter whether the concerns are true or not as long as Russians believe it, which means there’s nothing even to address because Russians will believe what they want to believe.

Hmmmm, no? Russians will believe what they’re shown with their own critical view, much like you and me. By having NATO at the very least address those grievances instead of pretending they don’t exist (or as they actually did, escalating), it wouldn’t surprise anybody that they’d get more galvanised. It’s strangely common here to see people who just completely disregard the support for this war from the Russian people. They’re human too, y’know.

And when Russian statements get questioned you drown out the criticism with an information dump that may or may not be related to the actual criticism.

And when questions are questioned I answer then. It’s not my fault you were so off the mark that I needed to contextualise the whole thing.

It would take me days to go through everything you wrote

Take your time, no rush. You might learn a thing or two, and then I might learn a thing your two from your reply.

It’s a common disinformation tactic and it would be a waste of my time to respond to that because you’re going to reply with another information dump.

It’s a common disinformation tactic to provide a fuckton of sourced information that contextualises all that is being said and provides argumentation and conclusion. Come on now, if you don’t like forum discussions why did you even come here to discuss something you don’t really care enough about?

This one is shorter, how about that?

Cool, at least you now acknowledge that those claims have been known since before the SMO and therefore that guarantees over it would have helped prevent it happening even if Putin really wanted it by taking away wind from the sails of the government.

First source

It doesn’t go into much detail other than “they say they’re not racist, some Jewish people even drink with them sometimes.” Yeah, there is disagreement over the role of the Nazis, and the first source I provided was specifically one that shows that there are indeed Nazis not only in society but as part of the government, even if I disagree with some of their conclusions there. Azov is a far-right paramilitary that has been specifically targetting Russian-majority regions like Donetsk since 2014 when they tried to become an independent republic after the 2014 coup. Have something from the time talking about their war on a separatist group, which is not very nice in my opinion.

Besides not having anything of substance other than “they’re nice lads to me personally,” your source also includes this line, which I think is a terrible look no matter who is saying it.

On average they speak better Russian than the Russian invaders.

Not only is "speaking better " a really weird way to put it, but just because they know a language doesn’t mean the represent the people there, specially since both Donetsk and Luhansk voted to become independent before they went there. Either way, the fact that there is a paramilitary with explicit Nazi symbology occupying a separatist region and destroying monuments to those who killed the Nazis in the first place, while also celebrating known Nazi collaborators like Bandera should at least be cause for concern.

NATO

The USSR and the Russian Federation are entirely different things. In fact, the guy who made Putin who he is now is Yeltsin who is famous only for illegally dissolving the Union and selling out the entirety of the country. To skip over that and pretend they are a continuous government is misleading. You are probably referring to this article in which it’s shown that NATO was seen as a threat in eastern Ukraine. After the Euromaidan coup, those eastern regions promptly either tried to get independence (Donetsk/Luhansk) and have been at war with Ukraine since, or in the case of Crimea have joined Russia and have very high polling opinions of their own referendum. And we must always remember that NATO has backed the 2014 coup, which is a common cause for the Crimean annexation that people often ignore. Guarantees such as removing Azov members from the government and military and banning Nazi symbology (instead of the currently banned communist ones) could have helped de-escalate the conflict.

faulty source on nukes

No idea what happened there, Google failed me. Here’s a fixed one on yandex. I’m not sure on the official “why” of getting nukes in Ukraine, but it was something that was discussed at the time, and is a huge threat to the Russian national security, specially considering the previously ongoing Donbass war. Imagine if during the Cuban missile crisis Cuba was actively at war with Puerto Rico or something of the sort. Guarantees such as “Ukraine will never have NATO nukes” would have been great de-escalation tactics.

Not only NATO’s fault

Yes, it also depends on both the government of Russia and Ukraine, but most notably not the Ukrainian people. There has been no referendum on joining NATO since the promise in 2014. Russia could’ve chosen to de-escalate, but the NATO-backed Ukrainian government could also have tried to de-escalate themselves. That’s what the “guarantee” you were so flabbergasted about a while back could’ve been.

If we talk about NATO as an extension of American imperialism then American has bigger problems than Russia, primarily China.

Yes, which is why NATO is not participating directly in this conflict, but using it as a proxy war to throw western ukranians at eastern ukranians with minimal cost to their own personnel. This war is basically a risky investment for them, if it succeeds, great, if it doesn’t they cut their losses and leave Ukraine in shambles, and it won’t impact them at home much. Specially the USA who won’t have to deal with the blowback from the Azov battalion like the EU will.

But either way it doesn’t matter much because NATO can act in two fronts at once. They are still acting in the South China sea while this war is ongoing, though it doesn’t fit as neatly into the news cycle. In the case of Ukraine, Ukraine itself along with the EU can focus there more, while in China they can better use the resources from Australia and Japan. They’re big enough to do multiple things at once.

Those grievances are either false or indirectly created by the Russian interference. I don’t see how anyone could take those grievances seriously.

Those grievances are the moral justification for the war, whether you believe that they are based in reality or not. Although I don’t have hard data on this at hand, I think it’s very likely that the Russian foot soldiers at least believe these grievances on some level, and such a risky SMO would not happen without military support. By making guarantees such as “1) Azov is disbanded, 2) Ukraine won’t join NATO, 3) the war on Donbass will end, 4) no nukes for Ukraine,” the Russian government would have a much harder time getting their people to willingly go to the front lines. Those are just some random ones I can think off the top of my head, but the smart ambassadors probably have some better compromises to be reached. However we both know that NATO has been wanting this war since 2013, since Russia is a critical ally of their enemies such as Syria, China, Cuba, Venezuela and now Niger and compromising would actually reduce the chances of their desired outcomes.

To regain part of their imperial hegemony that they lost to the EU during euromaidan? Ukraine was in the backpocket of Russia until the maidan revolution, do you really think Russia wouldn’t want that power back?

You might want to read this paper on the Maiden massacre before claiming it was a “revolution.” Long story short, protesters and police were shot at by snipers from far-right paramilitary groups, which was then covered up by the new government and the NATO-affiliated press, to make it seem like they were murdered by the (democratically elected) government. Then this government which was friendlier with Russia and tried to maintain neutrality got toppled, and US diplomats directed the appointment of the interim prime minister, which led to unrest and revolt in the eastern parts of Ukraine that did not support the coup, including armed insurgency in Donetsk and Luhansk, and then we got the Azov paramilitary being sent there to quell this revolt.

Following this rough timeline you can see how the war has very little to do with “USSR imperial hegemony” as if the USSR wasn’t always voluntary union from the very start. The official and moral casus belli of this war is still to maintain broader Russian national security and to support the independent republics of Donetsk and Luhansk (and Crimea), against the encroachment of the NATO-backed government allied with the Azov paramilitary that is known for destroying anti-fascist symbols, banning/imprisoning political opponents and imposing their unpopular government on the separatist eastern regions (PDF), not to mention banning elections.

To call that a “revolution” would mean that things changed for the better and the current government better represents the will of the people. If that were the case they’d be really popular in the east and wouldn’t need to send brownshirts to fight there, right? You frame Ukraine-Russia amicable relations as “being in Russia’s pocket,” but how would you argue against the opposite claim the the previous democratically elected government was just following its democratic mandate of ensuring neutrality and amicable relations with both the EU and Russia, without having to swastika-tattooed soldiers to kill dissenters?

This all started with “what guarantees should be given” and I’ve shown you some which you have not really refuted. All else is just bonus information to get you thinking a bit more.

Not to mention, the reasoning for the war has changed dramatically over and over, from “stop the Nazis!” To “oh they were totally going to join NATO and attack us!!!” To “The security of Europe!” And now “they were gonna get nukes!”

All three are on the speech from the very beginning, no change there. But here’s some English sources in order.

Nazis: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/ukraine-has-nazi-problem-vladimir-putin-s-denazification-claim-war-ncna1290946

Join NATO: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine

Nukes: https://ria-ru.translate.goog/20220301/ukraina-1775795745.html

You’re free to believe those grievances are not based in reality, but to claim that those grievances were not well known ever since beginning of the war to the Russian public is either dishonest or just lazy.

Russia can’t win a land war

You people keep saying that, and yet Russia seems to be winning this war for like 16 months now. Ukraine in NATO means nukes within minutes of Moscow and Russia completely surrounded on the western borders except for Belarus, it is definitely something I would want if I were NATO.

Putin was looking for an excuse

An excuse for what, exactly? What, in your perspective, does Russia, both the government and the people, gain from taking part in this war that is so much more important to them that what was officially in the speech declaring the SMO in the first place?

Even if you believe Putin personally hates Ukrainian people or something and would risk his entire government just for that, those grievances are the basis of the rhetoric used for justifying the war internally, and guarantees from NATO about those (remember why we started this discussion?) would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of any war effort. War is just the extension of politics.

I mean, it’s the speech in which he lays out to his people why they’re going to war. He’d be hard pressed to justify the SMO to all the soldiers if they didn’t have all those well known grievances, don’t you think?

Edit: wait, aren’t things government officials say not valid sources for what the government thinks or wants now? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this one. Do you know of a valid-er source for what the Russian government and military wanted as guarantees to not have this war?

Maybe this

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

Or this

Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen.

Might be some subjects in which guarantees would’ve averted the SMO.

Source

lmao they’re impersonating prensa-latina.cu, and I can’t even find the “bilingual” section.

He’s right, that’s why Brasil has been trying to get into the permanent security council since like 2002. The current majority members are either inept at avoiding wars or more likely complicit in starting as many as they can to create demands for their military complexes. They don’t even have permanent members from Africa or Latin America. Latin America, and in this particular case Brasil, wants nothing to do with this war except for helping creating a ceasefire, but one of the belligerents really hates the notion of pausing the war for negotiations.

By that logic the entirety of America should declare unending war against the United States. Doesn’t sound that terrible if you ask me, but isn’t exactly the “humanitarian” approach.

Just to clear it up a bit, these are three different operations in three different states with three different intents and even different targets. While sad, the framing makes it seem like it was all one big coordinated effort by the “Brazilian Police,” which is actually divided in command on a state level (and are very independent from the government). For the Yankees, it’d be like reporting people killed in USA police operations in California and New York in a single breath. This is a common trick of Gringo news to make it seem like third world countries are more dangerous than they actually are, coupled with only reporting on them when tragedies happen.

The only way that you could hope to gain traction in your stated mission to abolish capitalism is by convincing others that whatever comes next will stand the test of time, and so I am legitimately curious. I don’t think we can afford buying into pretty but empty promises.

First staunch flow, then treat infection, then do a course on first aid. If you do it the other way around you just die, though you at least get to be smug about it.

I really don’t understand what’s causing your vivid reaction here and you said nothing to help me understand it. But okay.

Vivid is a strange synonym for “sarcastic.” If you actually think anything can be done in an organised social society while ignoring opinions by looking only at “science,” I’m pretty sure you have no idea how anything, be it societal actions, be it actual research, gets done in practice. Have you ever heard the phrase “expert’s opinion,” or do you think data is some kind of holy word from god that speaks in tongues by itself?

You missed the forest for the tree, didn’t you? At the very least you deflected my question. In the present world order, how do those pertain to capitalism, and in the new world order that you propose, how are they addressed?

Nope. You pretend don’t want to deal with social questions that are impossible to measure, yet most of your questions you want answers for are exactly those. Which follows with:

I know this is sarcasm and I have no idea where you are going with your dead people’s law, but at least in the case of the social questions above, science, and the IPCC in particular could provide some partial answers (e.g. how long/how big the sacrifice, how to adjust to many aspects of every-day’s life), which will absolutely help weather the incoming storm. I really don’t see the need to denigrate.

Showing that you have no idea how social sciences work. You yourself listed dead people’s laws, which is why I pointed it out as absurd to measure scientifically. It’s on you to actually provide some data-only opinion-less analysis that measures the impact of social concepts such as these, but spoilers, you won’t find anything of value. They are unmeasurable and so are based on our human understanding which comes from studying and understanding many different perspectives and interpretations. There is no single “correct factual way” in social studies for the vast majority of cases, which is why I mocked your naïveté there. Good luck “factually” finding answers to your questions of interest in your future job at the IPCC.

Who exactly are my bourgeois overlords? And how are they compelling me to over-consume exactly?

Leave your computer device, pick your car, go to the supermarket, but some plastic with food in it, go back to your apartment, pay your rent, buy new electronic devices, maybe contract Hello Fresh because you don’t have time to shop groceries or watch yet another multimillion Marvel production from your ever-increasing backlog. Then come back and tell me which of those things are absolutely necessary for you. Specially considering the human and ecological cost to all of those things that you probably ignore daily.

Perhaps it’s not obvious but you and I must be very close on the political spectrum, and I could be your best ally when it comes to proposing a more sustainable lifestyle for the future.

Best ally seems incredibly unlikely, what do you even do to help? Vote?

I live in a mostly socialist highly-educated country where our political landscape is diverse and organized in coalitions who must compromise.

I’d like you to actually define socialism because we have a bunch of libs thinking the NHS is socialism running around. Also not sure what “highly-educated” has to do with anything. Weird flex.

Capitalism isn’t something that I see practically affect my life

lol

I don’t think you did. All I (mis)read is that abolishing capitalism to be a condition for addressing climate change, and I’ve been begging to know more about how it will play out in practice.

Did on the other one. Either way if you want me to get a USA government body to analyse the carbon benefit of toppling the USA, you’re gonna have to help me crowdfund it. I and others have shown here how capitalism is preventing us from democratically fighting climate change. Unless you know of some way to bypass those hurdles within capitalism (please don’t say “vote harder”), it naturally follows that abolishing capitalism is at least the only alternative we know.

I can only offer my biased and limited opinion, sorry. Proceeds to blame the victim.

Have a read from scientific material. This might help you stop blaming civilians with no power.

So I take away that you are a science denialist. If so, I don’t see the point of continuing further, because this could be all fake news as well. And if not, then I’ll ask what you gain from removing the scientific step from the decision process. And I would re-iterate my offer to provide evidence that the IPCC is biased as you claim.

For that you’d need to have linked literally any research for me to deny it. You have only named the IPCC randomly without providing any specific article, and I have not denied the truth of the only one you actually provided (the ancient China one). If you think science is only looking at pretty graphs in OWID and pretending that’s the whole picture, you might be a bit out of your league here, and that is why you’re so set on your positions while being so vague and abstract about the issue at hand. I say this as an actual researcher, though not of physics or meteorology.

Every research institution has a bias, research is made by humans and they have limited resources to allocate to every avenue of research. Even simple stuff like choosing one metric over another is a source of bias that needs to always be taken into account in any serious research. I don’t think it’s that important to prove that “the IPCC is biased” knowing that, and again you have not even provided a direct source from the IPCC for that to be relevant. Research has to take account of a multitude of sources and be very aware of what is and is not actually being studied, as well as paying attention to whether experiments are shown to be reproducible. You might notice that the IPCC provides recommendations as well as data, and since the data collection methods, the analysis already always contain some biases, the recommendations themselves will have even more as they are based on (very informed) opinion. Being biased isn’t a bad thing, it is natural, but failing to account for it is the problem. Not sure why liberals and laypeople keep getting this wrong.

But I guess I’ll humour you. 1, 2, 3, 4. Those are very well known cases of meddling.

Edit: btw, if you don’t want to split posts (please don’t because they’re annoying for me to reply to), then don’t quote yourself from two replies ago. I can just go check it, as I repeatedly do, and you’re just wasting space.