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

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
  • "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.
 
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth s Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
 
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
  • "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

Murry Salby - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In 2005, the National Science Foundation opened an investigation into Salby's federal funding arrangements and found that he had displayed "a pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money.[2] He resigned his position in Colorado in 2008 and became professor of climate risk at Macquarie University in Macquarie Park, New South Wales. In 2013 he was dismissed by the university on grounds of refusal to teach and misuse of university resources.[3]
 
Here is the complete process in DETAIL.

Step One: Get paid to do some "climate science" (wink, nod).

giving-money.jpg


Step Two: Fabricate date, err, I mean, do some "climate science" and create a "scientific" report that blames humans for "climate change".

business-woman-giving-us-white-paper-18605259.jpg


Step three: Have the document "peer reviewed" by other "scientists"......

333071-switzerland-god-particle.jpg


Step 4: Get paid even more money to "peer review" other "Scientists" junk....

fraud-kit.jpg
 
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth s Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

You do realize, of course, that the thermosphere starts at 53 miles above the Earths surface and ends at the boundary with outer space, and contains rarified gases at those altitudes, right? In other words, what it does way up there wrt to solar storms has no bearing on what happens in the atmosphere at the surface.
 
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

  • CO2 lags temperature on both short [~1-2 year] and long [~1000 year] time scales
  • The IPCC claim that "All of the increases [in CO2 concentrations since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity" is impossible
  • "Man-made emissions of CO2 are clearly not the source of atmospheric CO2 levels"
  • Satellite observations show the highest levels of CO2 are present over non-industrialized regions, e.g. the Amazon, not over industrialized regions
  • 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made
  • Net global emissions from all sources correlate almost perfectly with short-term temperature changes [R2=.93] rather than man-made emissions
  • Methane levels are also controlled by temperature, not man-made emissions
  • Climate model predictions track only a single independent variable - CO2 - and disregard all the other, much more important independent variables including clouds and water vapor.
  • The 1% of the global energy budget controlled by CO2 cannot wag the other 99%
  • Climate models have been falsified by observations over the past 15+ years
  • Climate models have no predictive value
  • Feynman's quote "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong" applies to the theory of man-made global warming.

I'd love to discuss these points with you, but I have to ask: What does this have to do with the IPCC review and approval processes?
 

PSI?

You actually admit to going to PSI? The kooks who openly deny the greenhouse effect?

Only two nutters here admit to going to that website, you and Billy_Bob. Why? Because everything it says is totally freakin' stupid.

But then, I see you also quote from Hockey Schtick. You hit all the extreme kook greenhouse effect denier blogs.

By the way, you'll eventually have to do more than cut-and-paste lists from blogs.
 
Last edited:
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.
you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.
 
you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.
 
Solar Storm Dumps Gigawatts into Earth s Upper Atmosphere - NASA Science

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

You do realize, of course, that the thermosphere starts at 53 miles above the Earths surface and ends at the boundary with outer space, and contains rarified gases at those altitudes, right? In other words, what it does way up there wrt to solar storms has no bearing on what happens in the atmosphere at the surface.

Or deep under the sea where the Blob resides, amiright?
 
And that gives them a pass on their past Lies............................What is the purpose of the OP........................

The other thread got flamed right off the bat by people like me.................Once they have Lied why the hell should I listen to anything else they have to say.....................................

What is the purpose of the OP
To continue to spread more bullshit and to try to make the IPCC look honest and truthful in the process. :cuckoo: :laugh:
 
Last edited:
you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence

Your claim is beyond ridiculous. The material to which you refer is not the product of the IPCC, it is virtually the sum of all climate research conducted worldwide. To suggest that all such material fails to rise to the level of evidence is simple bigotted ignorance.
 
you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence

Your claim is beyond ridiculous. The material to which you refer is not the product of the IPCC, it is virtually the sum of all climate research conducted worldwide. To suggest that all such material fails to rise to the level of evidence is simple bigotted ignorance.

No, it isn't. It's only the ones that fit the template, you don't allow dissenting opinions
 
you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch
has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

Yet funny you all can never provide any

You've got the link right there.

Funny, a conversation like this requires both sides provide objective evidence, rational thought and clear reason. We (courtesy of the world's climate scientists) provide you reams and reams of such things supporting our side of this argument. Yet, all we ever get from you is subjective, unevidenced irrationality.

Is it any wonder that I long ago came to the conclusions I've voiced on numerous occasions regarding the intellect of the primary denier posters on this forum?
 
you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch
has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

Yet funny you all can never provide any

You've got the link right there.

Funny, a conversation like this requires both sides provide objective evidence, rational thought and clear reason. We (courtesy of the world's climate scientists) provide you reams and reams of such things supporting our side of this argument. Yet, all we ever get from you is subjective, unevidenced irrationality.

Is it any wonder that I long ago came to the conclusions I've voiced on numerous occasions regarding the intellect of the primary denier posters on this forum?
dude, evidence isn't some report as Frank stated " IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence". so still you presented nothing. My evidence? My evidence is the fact that you have none. you can't supply any evidence that supports any such CO2 manslaughter. The observed weather and patterns of weather all negate your claim. The previous 17 years of .01 C warming contradicts the CO2 increase temperature increase cause and affect. So, still waiting on your evidence that suggests your claim as correct.
 
you're right we do expect evidence. the thing is, you don't provide any.

www.ipcc.ch has more evidence than your side of this argument could ever dream of; enough to have convinced an extremely large majority of the experts.

IPCC Peer Reviewed Circle jerk is not evidence

Your claim is beyond ridiculous. The material to which you refer is not the product of the IPCC, it is virtually the sum of all climate research conducted worldwide. To suggest that all such material fails to rise to the level of evidence is simple bigotted ignorance.
isn't worldwide global? Isn't the issue global warming? What the heck are you stating here?
 

Forum List

Back
Top