How does the IPCC review process work and how do they approve reports?

[eagle1462010]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/..._tthe_emails_that_really_damn_professor_jones

The most damning emails on this point are the following, starting with 1107454306.txt, in which Jones refers to MM - McIntyre and McKitrick (bold added):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

Mike, I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Jones admits he was warned by his own university against deleting data subjected to an FOI request from McIntyre - or anyone:

From: Phil Jones

To: santer1@XXXX

Subject: Re: A quick question

Date: Wed Dec 10 1010 2008

Ben,

Haven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I’m not doing that.I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn’t paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email.

Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner’s Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesn’t! I’m sounding like Sir Humphrey here!

 

[eagle1462010]

Their own emails shows them trying to hide data under investigation............................

Why would they do that.......................they wouldn't would they........................

LOL

 

[mamooth]

Their own emails shows them trying to hide data under investigation............................

The British house of commons said you're lying. They investigated, and found nothing was hidden.

Anyways, the topic is the IPCC, not the dishonest conspiracy theories that you parrot so ably. So let's get back to that. If you want to talk about the way deniers were disgraced after being caught lying about the emails, make your own thread about it.

 

[mamooth]

NO HEAT THERE..............

This is why deniers are laughed at. Most of them have zero common sense.

A person who was not stupid would consider much heat it takes to melt those glaciers. Upon finding it was a billion times more than those little steamers put out, they would conclude that "volcanoes did it!" is an insanely stupid theory.

However, the volcano cultists don't care about stupid things like numbers, as they believe mathematics is a liberal plot.

 

[eagle1462010]

Their own emails shows them trying to hide data under investigation............................

The British house of commons said you're lying. They investigated, and found nothing was hidden.

Anyways, the topic is the IPCC, not the dishonest conspiracy theories that you parrot so ably. So let's get back to that. If you want to talk about the way deniers were disgraced after being caught lying about the emails, make your own thread about it.

They found them innocent................oh gee.................just washed the emails showing them trying to delete them and hide evidence under the rug.............Probably correct, because there is a political agenda with this stuff as well.

 

[eagle1462010]

NO HEAT THERE..............

This is why deniers are laughed at. Most of them have zero common sense.

A person who was not stupid would consider much heat it takes to melt those glaciers. Upon finding it was a billion times more than those little steamers put out, they would conclude that "volcanoes did it!" is an insanely stupid theory.

However, the volcano cultists don't care about stupid things like numbers, as they believe mathematics is a liberal plot.

Again...........Forest for the trees.........never said it caused it all.............did say they found them and generate heat.............heat MELTS ICE...........how much is in question...............

and again............how much is caused by Man is still in question.......................which is the main point.............

I don't claim they aren't melting...........it's the WHY they are melting that we don't agree on..................HOW MUCH WAS CAUSED BY MAN..........................and do you still deny that the Eastern portion has grown......................

 

[Billy_Bob]

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_review_process.pdf

and

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_approve.pdf

REVIEW
The IPCC's review process is intended to make its reports as accurate and as objective as possible. The process is designed to make the process as transparent as possible. "Multiple stages of review are an essential part of the IPCC process to ensure a comprehensive, objective and transparent assessment of the current state of knowledge of the science related to climate change." Two drafts are composed, along with the Summary for Policy Makers. All of these are reviewed by the experts and by the 195 government involved in the process. Charges otherwise - that inadequate reviews are undertaken, that the report is produced by some sort of good old boy network or that it is the work of power hungry liberal in government are, once again, unsupportable on the facts.

APPROVE
"As the culmination of a report’s development, IPCC member governments endorse the report. The endorsement process is based on a dialogue between those who will use the report – the governments – and those who write it – the scientists."

The IPCC has three levels of endorsement: approval, adoption and acceptance:

"Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries, in consultation with the scientists responsible for drafting the report."

"Adoption is a section-by-section discussion leading to agreement among participating governments in consultation with the authors."

"Acceptance by governments signifies that the Technical Summary and chapters of the underlying report present a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter."

This looks fine and dandy but the POLITICIANS always override science in order to fit their agenda which is stated in their mission statement..

It is the stated role of the IPCC that is the root of the problem:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.”

Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change. And they do not as it would kill their stated agenda which is control and wealth redistribution.

 

[Old Rocks]

Volcanoes are not very good at melting ice. The biggest glacier on Mt. St. Helens is inside the crater, right against the growing lava dome.

 

[mamooth]

In Iceland, one of the early lava breakouts was under the glacier.

The glacier won. Big time. One little portion of it slumped down a bit, the stream outflow increased some, but the lava breakout was smothered.

 

[Crick]

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_review_process.pdf

and

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_approve.pdf

REVIEW
The IPCC's review process is intended to make its reports as accurate and as objective as possible. The process is designed to make the process as transparent as possible. "Multiple stages of review are an essential part of the IPCC process to ensure a comprehensive, objective and transparent assessment of the current state of knowledge of the science related to climate change." Two drafts are composed, along with the Summary for Policy Makers. All of these are reviewed by the experts and by the 195 government involved in the process. Charges otherwise - that inadequate reviews are undertaken, that the report is produced by some sort of good old boy network or that it is the work of power hungry liberal in government are, once again, unsupportable on the facts.

APPROVE
"As the culmination of a report’s development, IPCC member governments endorse the report. The endorsement process is based on a dialogue between those who will use the report – the governments – and those who write it – the scientists."

The IPCC has three levels of endorsement: approval, adoption and acceptance:

"Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries, in consultation with the scientists responsible for drafting the report."

"Adoption is a section-by-section discussion leading to agreement among participating governments in consultation with the authors."

"Acceptance by governments signifies that the Technical Summary and chapters of the underlying report present a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter."

This looks fine and dandy but the POLITICIANS always override science in order to fit their agenda which is stated in their mission statement..

It is the stated role of the IPCC that is the root of the problem:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.”

Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change. And they do not as it would kill their stated agenda which is control and wealth redistribution.

I find it interesting that you and FCT give the precise same quote. Speaks to the shallowness of your resources.

 

[eagle1462010]

In Iceland, one of the early lava breakouts was under the glacier.

The glacier won. Big time. One little portion of it slumped down a bit, the stream outflow increased some, but the lava breakout was smothered.

Slumped down a bit................aka melted....................next.

 

[Crick]

This looks fine and dandy but the POLITICIANS always override science in order to fit their agenda which is stated in their mission statement..

It is the stated role of the IPCC that is the root of the problem:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.”

Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change. And they do not as it would kill their stated agenda which is control and wealth redistribution.

Let's try quoting them a little less selectively, eh? A link would have been nice as well. Haven't you read the new rules?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.""

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[eagle1462010]

This looks fine and dandy but the POLITICIANS always override science in order to fit their agenda which is stated in their mission statement..

It is the stated role of the IPCC that is the root of the problem:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.”

Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change. And they do not as it would kill their stated agenda which is control and wealth redistribution.

Let's try quoting them a little less selectively, eh? A link would have been nice as well. Haven't you read the new rules?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.""

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

This looks fine and dandy but the POLITICIANS always override science in order to fit their agenda which is stated in their mission statement..

It is the stated role of the IPCC that is the root of the problem:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.”

Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change. And they do not as it would kill their stated agenda which is control and wealth redistribution.

Let's try quoting them a little less selectively, eh? A link would have been nice as well. Haven't you read the new rules?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.""

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

aka..............Please ignore their past Lies and abuses of their own rules.................Please ignore the emails that showed them deleting evidence that would have shown them purposely changing data and reporting it...........................and Please excuse the Kangaroo Court that cleared them for Political reasons.................

As in this and other threads...................show the ice melting via MAN.......................We all KNOW IT'S MELTING..................Nature or MAN......................as you ignore any Natural Causes that contribute to the melt.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Billy_Bob]

This looks fine and dandy but the POLITICIANS always override science in order to fit their agenda which is stated in their mission statement..

It is the stated role of the IPCC that is the root of the problem:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.”

Nowhere does it say that the IPCC should take account of natural climate change. And they do not as it would kill their stated agenda which is control and wealth redistribution.

Let's try quoting them a little less selectively, eh? A link would have been nice as well. Haven't you read the new rules?

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.""

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

"IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, "

Dont make me laugh... You need to read UN Agenda 21 and their moves to take away the sovereignty of the US. The IPCC is nothing more than political Bull Shit on steroids.. The Agenda Trumps EVERYTHING! Neutral? Then why do they demand 76 Trillion to redistribute?

 

[Crick]

as you ignore any Natural Causes that contribute to the melt.

The science most assuredly does NOT ignore natural causes for warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, Eagle, you can post cute little cartoons with zero revelance to the subject at hand. For those of us that are sane, we prefer to see real evidence on the subject of global warming and climate change. We also prefer to present that evidence here, and the links to the evidence. Where most of the time, you, and the other posters like you, present nothing but flap yap, or links to sources with less credibility than the National Enquirer.

 

[eagle1462010]

So, Eagle, you can post cute little cartoons with zero revelance to the subject at hand. For those of us that are sane, we prefer to see real evidence on the subject of global warming and climate change. We also prefer to present that evidence here, and the links to the evidence. Where most of the time, you, and the other posters like you, present nothing but flap yap, or links to sources with less credibility than the National Enquirer.

ipcc thread........................they lied.................showed the emails.................cover up......................

Answered OP..........Op ignored...............

give you cartoons instead........................

and much of the argument is in the antarctic thread.......................

 

[eagle1462010]

What Climate Alarmists Don t Want You Knowing About CO2 Principia Scientific Intl

Below are typical well-known and established scientific facts that climate change alarmists would rather keep from you.

• As part of the “Carbon Cycle”, through photosynthesis, atmospheric carbon dioxide is the sole source of the oxygen that we need to breathe (one molecule of CO2 produces one molecule of O2).
• Similarly, through photosynthesis,our entire food supply (animal and vegetable) is dependent upon carbon dioxide. Needless to say, carbon dioxide is essential to our survival.
• In Calgary, Alberta, we accommodate “seasonal” temperature changes from, say, +30 C (summer) to -30 C (winter) for a 60 C temperature range, which is due to the Sun. The +2 C “drift” in “average” global temperatures is attributed, by alarmists, to carbon dioxide (currently 400 ppm, parts-per-million, by volume in the atmosphere).
• Carbon dioxide is a much poorer “green house gas” than water vapour (by a factor of ~160, see thermodynamic analysis: http://www.biocab.org/Heat Stored.html). Water vapour (at 1% or 10,000 ppm, by volume in the atmosphere) is particularly prevalent over the oceans that cover three-quarters of the surface of our planet.
• A recent publication by NASA suggests that carbon dioxide actually contributes to “Global Cooling”:http://www.naturalnews.com/040448 solar radiation global warming debunked.html
• There are fossils of palm trees in the high Arctic and evidence of a previous Ice Age that had little to do with the activities of Man.
• Meaningful, unbiased/objective, “hard” sources of global data regarding sources of carbon dioxide can be difficult to find in a format suitable for comparison purposes.
• The site Carbon Dioxide Sources Science Articles PlanetSEED provides an excellent list of sources, but ignores the contribution of "natural" forest and grass fires. A more complete list is as follows: