Very interesting. I've been explaining to people for a while now that IPCC is not a science organization, it's a political consensus organization. This well-researched article fills in some of the gaps helping to understand the conflicts of interests that work below the surface to distort and politicize/financialize climate science/policy.
I didn't recognize any of the names on the lists of committee members. Has anyone requested disclosures of conflicts of interest, and so forth, that might reveal bias or the possibility for undue influence.
I'm also trying to understand if this is a bad thing, unless it does reflect improper influence. The IPCC's failure to admit the implausibility of RCP 8.5 suggests that there may be shenanigans afoot.
Well, well, well. Of COURSE we can trust these few elite 'scientists' to be TOTALLY objective. They would NEVER do anything reprehensible like push their own products or the products of the organizations that pay them the big bucks - that would be UNETHICAL - the horror!
Now we can add 'Climate Emergency' to the long (and growing longer by the day) of 'conspiracy theories' that have turned out to be factual. It is absolutely amazing to me that ANYONE believes these guys anymore - - except for the fact that the entire industry's payola depends one everybody staying in lock-step with each other, regardless of how badly their pronouncements reflect reality.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
In 2011 Occupy Wall Street started to get public recognition of the unbalanced power banks are wielding and the inherent problems for democracy when wealth is over-concentrated and wages are kept stagnant.
In what seems like moments, it disappeared and was replaced by well funded movements to focus all attention on gender and race issues and the banks went on their merry ways, gathering power and furthering their campaign to force us all to live in tiny high rise apartments, give up personal transportation or, indeed, personal travel, and to eat bugs.
If the IPCC is being driven by the big banks, no good can come from it.
Very interesting. I've been explaining to people for a while now that IPCC is not a science organization, it's a political consensus organization. This well-researched article fills in some of the gaps helping to understand the conflicts of interests that work below the surface to distort and politicize/financialize climate science/policy.
Just one big “ good old boys network “. Who would have ever thunk it?
I didn't recognize any of the names on the lists of committee members. Has anyone requested disclosures of conflicts of interest, and so forth, that might reveal bias or the possibility for undue influence.
I'm also trying to understand if this is a bad thing, unless it does reflect improper influence. The IPCC's failure to admit the implausibility of RCP 8.5 suggests that there may be shenanigans afoot.
Well, well, well. Of COURSE we can trust these few elite 'scientists' to be TOTALLY objective. They would NEVER do anything reprehensible like push their own products or the products of the organizations that pay them the big bucks - that would be UNETHICAL - the horror!
Now we can add 'Climate Emergency' to the long (and growing longer by the day) of 'conspiracy theories' that have turned out to be factual. It is absolutely amazing to me that ANYONE believes these guys anymore - - except for the fact that the entire industry's payola depends one everybody staying in lock-step with each other, regardless of how badly their pronouncements reflect reality.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
This is why the IPCC will not take note of 2 salient facts
1. No One has put forward a proof that doubling CO2 will increase IR absorption.
2. NASA finding that the present level of CO2 is adequate to absorb ALL of the energy the only band of interest, 14-16microns. NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendix E.
Terrifying.
In 2011 Occupy Wall Street started to get public recognition of the unbalanced power banks are wielding and the inherent problems for democracy when wealth is over-concentrated and wages are kept stagnant.
In what seems like moments, it disappeared and was replaced by well funded movements to focus all attention on gender and race issues and the banks went on their merry ways, gathering power and furthering their campaign to force us all to live in tiny high rise apartments, give up personal transportation or, indeed, personal travel, and to eat bugs.
If the IPCC is being driven by the big banks, no good can come from it.
May I repost this on wattsupwiththat.com, with credit, link back to original, and a call to subscribe to your stack?