What is the IPCC

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
27,745
5,245
290
N/A
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_what_ipcc.pdf

This is a link to a UN factsheet, in English, giving a brief (1.5 pages) overview of the purpose, nature and function of the IPCC.

As you read this, consider how many of these comments regarding the available resources and the QA applied, would be found in an objective examination of your sources. Note also lines such as "IPCC assessments are written by hundreds of leading scientists who volunteer their time and expertise as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors of the reports" and "The assessments are policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive: they may present projections of future climate change based on different scenarios and the risks that climate change poses and discuss the implications of response options, but they do not tell policymakers what actions to take" before presenting the standard, denier charges that climate scientists find AGW because it makes them rich and that liberals push AGW because it gives them control.
 
Perhaps they should volunteer their time to aiding weather girls get the 36-hour weather forecast more than 30% correct and leave the crystal ball science alone.
 
Proven Liars on data......................Caught in the past falsifying data on climate...................

Untrue. If you think that to be the case, let's see your evidence.

Before you waste your time making the attempt, you might want to think about the FACT that the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. Since they own no data, what data could they have falsified?
 
IPCC openly admitted global warming has nothing to do with science but is about wealth redistribution

No, they did not. One of the thousands of individuals who work and volunteer for the IPCC expressed a personal opinion whose meaning, import and authority you and yours have chosen to grossly misinterpret. It has as much merit as would my giving the IPCC responsibility for the ignorant polemics of 'Lord' Monckton.
 
The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph
http:http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterfe...acier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html

screenhunter_627-jun-22-21-18.gif


1998changesannotated.gif
 
Graph above was how data was lied about............Up until 2000 the data was the 1st graph....................PFM....................after 2000 the temperatures rose.......................PURE FUCKING MAGIC.................PFM..................
 
10 000-year-old Antarctic ice shelf will disappear by 2020 Page 27 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

been discussing on this thread.................and the IPCC knows nothing of misreported data lol............

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever - Telegraph

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
 
I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?
 

The IPCC didn't do anything with any data. How many times does this have to be repeated: the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. Do you understand?
They got caught with emails in FAKEGATE.............................Purposely Lying saying it didn't matter............................................because they needed to ALARM THE WORLD.................

To the GREEN MACHINE......................the end justifies the means.................especially when grants are and money are on the line..................
 
I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?
Which is why they change their tune all the time...........Global Cooling..........no no........Warming........uh..........more hurricanes...........um............less hurricanes..............um............all the ice will be gone............ummmmmmmmmm......................we'll be underwater...................it'll be gone in 5 years...............oops..............CLIMATE CHANGE..............

GlobalWarmingConsensusGraph.gif
 

The IPCC didn't do anything with any data. How many times does this have to be repeated: the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. Do you understand?
They got caught with emails in FAKEGATE.............................Purposely Lying saying it didn't matter............................................because they needed to ALARM THE WORLD.................

To the GREEN MACHINE......................the end justifies the means.................especially when grants are and money are on the line..................

One more time. We are talking about the IPCC. The IPCC was not involved in the emails stolen from the UEA/CRU mail server. Do you actually have any pertinent comments?
 
For the fourth time, the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. They have manipulated no data.

The rapid rise of global temperatures in the latter 20th century is most decidedly NOT dependent on any recent temperature adjustments.

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
 
IPCC openly admitted global warming has nothing to do with science but is about wealth redistribution

No, they did not. One of the thousands of individuals who work and volunteer for the IPCC expressed a personal opinion whose meaning, import and authority you and yours have chosen to grossly misinterpret. It has as much merit as would my giving the IPCC responsibility for the ignorant polemics of 'Lord' Monckton.

Translation: IPCC got caught telling the truth
 
I'd like to point out that scientists - almost every man jack of them - were convinced that AGW was a valid theory and that we should be worried about anthropogenic warming, before any of these adjustments were ever made. AGW does not rely on those adjustments. Did you think that it did?


There's your main problem BullWinkle with this 4 thread campaign to resurrect the never existing credibility of the IPCC. You don't understand why these folks would alter data that didn't fit their preconceived notions. You just SAID there WERE preconceived notions didn't you? Well its vitally important to REDUCE past historical temperatures so that you make constant media claims about UNPRECEDENTED temps -- isn't it?

In terms of THIS OP -- it's a total fail. Because you failed to read and comprehend the most important statement of "What the IPCC is".. It's their Mission Statement stupid..

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. 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, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

NOT to present unbiased climate science, NOT to investigate alternative views and explanations, but to look at information RELEVENT to HUMAN INDUCED climate change. It's a political body that reviews and writes the conclusions. And they SELECT those scientists who will pervert their work enough to comply with their Mission Statement.
 
For the fourth time, the IPCC neither conducts nor finances research. They have manipulated no data.

The rapid rise of global temperatures in the latter 20th century is most decidedly NOT dependent on any recent temperature adjustments.

1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I've never seen you understand a single graph you've ever presented. Even those you've used a zillion times. The SIGNIFICANCE of that graph to the CC argument is NOT that spike at the right side --- It's the ABSENCE of spikes in the previous 1000 yrs and the choice not to present data earlier than that. It's the purposeful avoidance of 1000s of studies indicating that the real natural variance of surface temps puts that recent "spike" in a more benign context.. That's why it's important to be fudging the old historical temps even to this day....
 
IPCC openly admitted global warming has nothing to do with science but is about wealth redistribution

No, they did not. One of the thousands of individuals who work and volunteer for the IPCC expressed a personal opinion whose meaning, import and authority you and yours have chosen to grossly misinterpret. It has as much merit as would my giving the IPCC responsibility for the ignorant polemics of 'Lord' Monckton.

Translation: IPCC got caught telling the truth

The IPCC has no authority, Frank. They cannot set policy or even goals for anyone. They are not a government or even an agency of a government. How would the IPCC accomplish wealth distribution and, given that they work for 195 different governments with 195 different points of view on how government should perform, WHY would they do so?

Are they redistributing wealth from one set of nations to the another? Why would the put-upon nations agree to such a thing? And if you want to charge that they are redistributing wealth from individuals to governments, government already does that with no help from the UN.

The only person caught here is you, Frank, being ignorant.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top