Cytuj:
Lord Xivan napisał
https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46...inst-the-ipcc/
Cytuj:
Lord Xivan napisał
Z*d robi cie w balona, pobudka.
Cytuj:
BIOGRAPHIES of IPCC SCIENTISTS
Cytuj:
Dr Robert C Balling, Jr. Dr Robert Ballingis a professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology. His research interests include climatology, global climate change, and geographic information systems. Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming “is indeed real, but relatively modest”, and maintaining that there is a publication bias in the scientific literature.
Cytuj:
Balling was mentioned as a fossil fuel industry – funded scientist in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book The Heat is On. This led the Minnesota Star Tribune to run an editorial speaking of a "disinformation campaign" by some climatologists. Balling and his colleague Patrick Michaels took a complaint against the Star Tribune to the Minnesota News Council. By a 9–4 decision the council "voted to sustain the complaint that the Star Tribune editorial unfairly characterized the scientific reputations of Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling."[12] At the 1998 hearing, Balling "acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead)."[12]
Between December 1998[13] and September 2001[14] Balling was listed as a "Scientific Adviser" to the Greening Earth Society, a group that was funded and controlled by the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies. WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, "as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use."[15] In 2001, while it was directed by Balling, ASU's office of climatology received $49,000 from ExxonMobil.[16]
From 1989 to 2002, Balling received more than $679,000 from fossil-fuel-industry organizations; as of 2007, he also had received more than $7 million in research funding from the National Science Foundation and the EPA.[17] He has also come under scrutiny because he was listed as a tentative author of the Heartland Institute's NIPCC report; however, ASU's vice president of public affairs, Virgil Renzulli, pointed out that this did not imply that Balling had been receiving money from Heartland. Balling himself added that his prior involvement with the Heartland Institute's activities amounted only to appearing at a luncheon they held in 2008.[18]
On February 24, 2015, Arizona State Representative Raúl Grijalva wrote letters to seven universities where climate skeptic scientists (including Balling) worked, citing concerns about these scientists' conflicts of interest and non-disclosure of corporate funding. In these letters, Grijalva requested records on the funding and testimony prepared before a government body.[19][20]
Halo dajesz sie robic w balona bogatym lobbystom, pobudka
co do Ipcc
Cytuj:
Since the IPCC does not carry out its own research, it operates on the basis of scientific papers and independently documented results from other scientific bodies, and its schedule for producing reports requires a deadline for submissions prior to the report's final release. In principle, this means that any significant new evidence or events that change our understanding of climate science between this deadline and publication of an IPCC report cannot be included. In an area of science where our scientific understanding is rapidly changing, this has been raised as a serious shortcoming in a body which is widely regarded as the ultimate authority on the science.[162] However, there has generally been a steady evolution of key findings and levels of scientific confidence from one assessment report to the next.[citation needed]
The submission deadlines for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) differed for the reports of each Working Group. Deadlines for the Working Group I report were adjusted during the drafting and review process in order to ensure that reviewers had access to unpublished material being cited by the authors. The final deadline for cited publications was 24 July 2006.[163] The final WG I report was released on 30 April 2007 and the final AR4 Synthesis Report was released on 17 November 2007.Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, admitted at the launch of this report that since the IPCC began work on it, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change", like the unforeseen dramatic melting of polar ice in the summer of 2007,[164] and added, "that means you better start with intervention much earlier".[165]
Cytuj:
Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor-intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs.[166] Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.
Cytuj:
In May 2010, Pachauri noted that the IPCC currently had no process for responding to errors or flaws once it issued a report. The problem, according to Pachauri, was that once a report was issued the panels of scientists producing the reports were disbanded.
Cytuj:
The 2018 report What Lies Beneath by the Breakthrough - National Centre for Climate Restoration, with contributions from Kevin Anderson, James Hansen, Michael E. Mann, Michael Oppenheimer, Naomi Oreskes, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Rignot, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Kevin Trenberth, and others, urges the IPCC, the wider UNFCCC negotiations, and national policy makers to change their approach. The authors note, "We urgently require a reframing of scientific research within an existential risk-management framework."
Dodatkowo można znaleźć dowody na to, że samo IPCC przyjmuje kwit od koncernów naftowych, w których celu jest przecież minimalizowanie zagrożenia jakim jest globalne ocieplenie
https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/2...climate-change
oraz
Cytuj:
On 27 April 2017, 108 civil society organizations signed a letter requesting the IPCC to reconsider its list of authors for the upcoming Special Report on keeping global warming below 1.5°C. Two senior employees from major oil companies were selected among the authors for the Report, which the letter considers a major hurdle to make a fair report, and a violation of the IPCC's conflict of interest policy.
Organizational signatories were from six continents, and included global international organizations such as 350.org, ActionAid, Friends of the Earth International and Greenpeace International, along with many other national and regional organizations from around the world.
The two authors in question work with ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco, the second- and third-largest corporate emitters of greenhouse gases worldwide respectively. These two companies bear a large part of the responsibility for causing climate change, along with 88 other corporate emitters who together are responsible for 2/3 of cumulative historical carbon dioxide and methane emissions since 1854, according to a study by Richard Heede.
a tu sama tresc listu dla zainteresowanych
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...PFvGVz3SUJWCyR
