Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The scientists whose names appear on those reports approved the versions we read.
And you missed the part about the actual research. The IPCC conducts no research. They use the research being done and published around the world. Your idea just doesn't hold water. Not a single drop.
Missed the point as usual s0n.......
THE story is about how every climate summit invites ONLY climate ringers. If you are a scientists and not part of the "official" religion, you cant get an invite.
In other words......its rigged science.
Anybody who draws a different conclusion is either 1) a mental case ( thinking its legitimate ) OR 2) A phoney fraud. ( knows its rigged but acts like its not ).
The scientists whose names appear on those reports approved the versions we read.
And you missed the part about the actual research. The IPCC conducts no research. They use the research being done and published around the world. Your idea just doesn't hold water. Not a single drop.
The scientists whose names appear on those reports approved the versions we read.
And you missed the part about the actual research. The IPCC conducts no research. They use the research being done and published around the world. Your idea just doesn't hold water. Not a single drop.
You dont have a clue about how they work do you. Paid propagandist shill... Do you know why over 71% of scientists WITHDRAW their names from those papers? Because the political rewrite has no basis in science!
.........ALL about "sustainable development"......green energy development is HUGE in this area.
I invite ANY opened minded person to read through this UN document and tell me all their shit isn't rigged to fit the agenda.......and agenda they openly speak of in their training sessions >>>>
http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/ngoconference/shared/Documents/Draft One Version.pdf
Shit is all rigged.......just like the Climate Summit, sponsored by the UN.......only naïve and hopelessly duped think otherwise.
Easy to see how.......if you don't bring science that fits the cult versions.......you're out!!!!.
The scientists whose names appear on those reports approved the versions we read.
And you missed the part about the actual research. The IPCC conducts no research. They use the research being done and published around the world. Your idea just doesn't hold water. Not a single drop.
You dont have a clue about how they work do you. Paid propagandist shill... Do you know why over 71% of scientists WITHDRAW their names from those papers? Because the political rewrite has no basis in science!
here are just 9 individual links. but the list is much, much longer...Still waiting for Billy Bob to identify a reference - any reference - that would give him REASON to believe that 71% of climate scientists involved with the IPCC's assessment reports withdrew their names from the document.
And since Skookerasbil is so ignorant and so bigoted that he has enormous trouble understanding what's going on around him: we need LINKS from Billy Bob because he's provided NONE.
NEED LINKS FROM BILLY BOB. HE'S PROVIDED NONE.
In a 2009 interview with the Bahai News Service in 2009, Pachauri that when “the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken.”
“People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned,’” he said.
Morano asked how Pachauri and other U.N. officials in 2009 or 2010 could possibly know what a “science” report in 2014 would say.
His answer was direct.
“The U.N. IPCC is a political body masquerading as a ‘science’ body,’” he charged. “The U.N.’s ‘science’ conclusions are agreed to line by line for its Summary for Policy Makers with politicians, U.N. officials and delegates.”
The IPCC has yet to recover from the major damage to its credibility posed by “Climategate.” The controversy that developed in 2009 centered on the release of thousands emails between IPCC members that were hacked from a computer server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
The emails showed that prominent climate scientists had falsified data to support their contention that human-generated carbon dioxide would have disastrous environmental consequences.
Morano further points out the London Daily Mail has reported a contributor to the IPCC’s latest climate assessment, Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, has accused the IPCC of being “alarmist” and has demanded his name be withdrawn.
Crick doesn't know that the Executive Committees composed of political science hacks and economists DETERMINE the outcome of the Science Section. They even have editorial control over the Conclusions, Executive Summary and Press Releases. The science BETTER conform to their wishes or they simply piss-off authors and hire new ones.
It is a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION with a definite product in mind.
And the folks IN CHARGE of the process are less of scientists than ideologues with grudges..
CrickHam thinks the science section of the IPCC runs the show..
They are simply rent-a-geeks.... And CHOSEN no less..
“The U.N. IPCC is a political body masquerading as a ‘science’ body,’” he charged. “The U.N.’s ‘science’ conclusions are agreed to line by line for its Summary for Policy Makers with politicians, U.N. officials and delegates.”
here are just 9 individual links. but the list is much, much longer...Still waiting for Billy Bob to identify a reference - any reference - that would give him REASON to believe that 71% of climate scientists involved with the IPCC's assessment reports withdrew their names from the document.
And since Skookerasbil is so ignorant and so bigoted that he has enormous trouble understanding what's going on around him: we need LINKS from Billy Bob because he's provided NONE.
NEED LINKS FROM BILLY BOB. HE'S PROVIDED NONE.
- UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made
www.climatedepot.com/.../un-scientists-who-have-turned-...
Climate Depot
Aug 21, 2013 - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD ... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for ... had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. ... his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have ...- UK professor refuses to put his name to 'apocalyptic' UN ...
Home Mail Online
Daily Mail
Mar 25, 2014 - Previous IPCC reports on climate impact have been plagued by errors that ... the Himalayas could disappear by 2035, a claim it has since withdrawn. Scientists are meeting in Japan this week to agree the wording of the final ...- Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Latest news world news sport and comment from the Guardian theguardian.com The Guardian › Environment › Sea level
The Guardian
Feb 21, 2010 - Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels ... by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still ... Sender's name ... No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy.- IPCC author brands upcoming climate report 'alarmist' - The ...
www.theguardian.com/.../ipcc-author-climate-report-alarmi...
The Guardian
Mar 28, 2014 - Professor Richard Tol withdraws from writing team for UN climate science panel's report on impacts of global warming. ... Sender's name. Recipient's ... Climate change report 'should jolt people into action' says IPCC chief.- Climate Scientist Demands IPCC Remove His Name From ...
www.thepiratescove.us/.../climate-scientist-demands-ipcc-remove-his-na...
Mar 27, 2014 - Climate Scientist Demands IPCC Remove His Name From Report ... You think that a group leader of the report withdrawing his support is not a ...- Scientist Resigns Over 'Alarmist' Tone of UN Climate ...
www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/Climate-change-IPCC/.../562248/
Mar 27, 2014 - Tol's withdrawal is bad news for the IPCC, which is still reeling from the fallout ... requested that his name be removed, the Daily Mail reported.- “The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to ...
8220 The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable 8221 8212 Prof. Richard Tol
Apr 1, 2014 - Last week, Tol accused the IPCC of being too alarmist about global ... his name withdrawn from its recently-released Working Group II report ...- Outlier scientist seeks spotlight as new IPCC report outlines ...
www.climatesciencewatch.org/.../outlier-scientist-seeks-spotlight-as-new-i...
Mar 29, 2014 - The IPCC climate change assessment report on Impacts, Adaptation ... to withdraw from the author team drafting the report summary to seek a ...- Scientists: Resignations & withdrawals from the IPCC ...
Scientists Resignations withdrawals from the IPCC HABITAT 21
A number of them have found it impossible to reconcile their scientific work with the lead-authors who compile IPCC reports. Others have found that when they ...
Too Funny... You cant even use Google. Always waiting for someone else to do the work..
I'm not saying 71%, but here is a link that has names of those associated with the UN that withdrew their names. From the Climate DepotI didn't change the topic and given the complete lack of content in virtually ALL your posts, you were never on it.
Billy Bob made a claim concerning the scientific validity of the UN's IPCC assessment reports. He claimed that 71% of UN scientists had withdrawn their names from the documents. I asked for references. After days of haranguing, he gives us crap. Irrelevant, inapplicable crap.
UK professor refuses to put his name to apocalyptic UN climate change survey Mail Online
UK professor refuses to put his name to 'apocalyptic' UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects
Prof Richard Tol said UN academics were exaggerating climate change
Comes as a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Panel to publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change
A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report.
Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.
His comments are a blow to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which on Monday will publish its first update in seven years on the impacts of climate change.
http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...Evaluation of IPCC’s Assessment Processes.pdf
Recommendation
? The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping
meetings more transparent.
The IPCC has no formal process or
criteria for selecting authors, although some Working Group Co-chairs established their own for the fourth assessment, considering factors such as scientific expertise and excellence, geography, gender, age, viewpoint,and the ability to work in teams.9 Establishing such criteria and applying
them in a transparent manner to all Working Groups would alleviate some of the frustrations voiced.
An analysis of the 14,000 references cited in the Third
Assessment Report found that peer-reviewed journal articles comprised 84
percent of references in Working Group I, but comprised only 59 percent
of references in Working Group II and 36 percent of references in
Working Group III (Bjurström and Polk, 2010).
Non-peer-reviewed sources are to be listed in the reference sections of
IPCC reports, followed by a statement that they are not peer-reviewed. The
objectives are to ensure that all information used in IPCC reports receives
some sort of critical evaluation and its use is open and transparent, and
that all references used in the reports are easily accessible.
Although the Committee finds that IPCC’s procedures in this respect
are adequate, it is clear that these procedures are not always followed.
Some of the errors discovered in the Fourth Assessment Report had been
attributed to poor handling of unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources
(Ravindranath, 2010). Moreover, a search through the Working Group
reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information
flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed
Handling the full range of views
An assessment is intended to arrive at a judgment of a topic, such as the
best estimate of changes in average global surface temperature over a specified
time frame and its impacts on the water cycle. Although all reasonable
points of view should be considered, they need not be given equal
weight or even described fully in an assessment report. Which alternativeviewpoints warrant mention is a matter of professional judgment
Equally important is combating confirmation bias—the tendency of
authors to place too much weight on their own views relative to other
views (Jonas et al., 2001). As pointed out to the Committee by a presenter10 and some questionnaire respondents, alternative views are not always
cited in a chapter if the Lead Authors do not agree with them. Getting the balance right is an ongoing struggle. However, concrete steps could also be taken. For example, chapters could include references to all papers that
were considered by the authoring team and describe the authors’ rationale for arriving at their conclusions.
