Remember me
▼ Content

In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud


In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud03-01-2018 20:25
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
This was a carefully researched book on the actions of the IPCC that claims that they used the top scientists in the world to write their 44 chapter Climate Bible.

Among other claims were that all papers used by the IPCC had to be peer reviewed. Now we won't go into the fact that most papers are peer reviewed by friends of the paper's authors that are so biased that even non-scientists can easily pick them apart making the peer review process hardly worthwhile but even supposing it has excellent results:

UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card
 all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
 IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
 each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F (59% and below)
 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project

https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf

After discovering that virtually every word in the IPCC report is not written by "the best scientists in the world" but often by nothing else but ecologist activist flunkies you can look at the peer review process here:

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf

Now peer reviewing is a good idea if it is done by unbiased and totally above board reviewers. The problem is that too often it is not.

So, actually a paper should stand on it's own integrity and not bear the crutch of someone else's reputation.

Now that more and more scientists jobs are not on the line for disagreeing with the environmentalists and the politicians seeking more power we can see the fraud of man-made global warming falling apart.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/01/150-non-global-warming-graphs-from-2017-pummel-claims-of-unusual-modern-warmth/#sthash.xOMSjuoT.dpbs

Our resident scumbucket litebrain is telling us that the world is dying and that all of the ice is melting. Doesn't seem to be the case.

http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/#sthash.WiG0rDYh.dpbs

What do you suppose nightmare will do when he can't tell himself he's the resident expert in things he hasn't the slightest understanding of?

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/16/taking-the-planets-temperature-how-are-global-temperatures-calculated/
03-01-2018 23:09
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(76)
hardly world to be peer reviewed by the papers used that are so biased that are peer review process hardly world to write their 44 chapter Climate Bible.

Among other claims that all papers used the peer reviewed. Now we worthwhile but even non-scientists in the world to be peer reviewed by the world to be peer reviewed by the IPCC had to write their 44 chapter Climate Bible.

Among other claims were they used them apart making
03-01-2018 23:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
L8112 wrote:
hardly world to be peer reviewed by the papers used that are so biased that are peer review process hardly world to write their 44 chapter Climate Bible.

Among other claims that all papers used the peer reviewed. Now we worthwhile but even non-scientists in the world to be peer reviewed by the world to be peer reviewed by the IPCC had to write their 44 chapter Climate Bible.

Among other claims were they used them apart making


I think that you used the texting feature on your phone and it has completely scrambled your meaning.
03-01-2018 23:34
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(76)
I think that you used the texting feature on your meaning.
03-01-2018 23:36
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
L8112 wrote: I think that you used the texting feature on your meaning.


So the only reason you're here is to interfere with the discussion. I should have realized that.
03-01-2018 23:40
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(76)
im just speaking your language: gibberish
03-01-2018 23:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
L8112 wrote: im just speaking your language: gibberish


So what you're saying is that you don't understand English. That's the usual story with your kind.
03-01-2018 23:44
L8112
★☆☆☆☆
(76)
English. That's the usual story with your kind. So what you don't understand English.
03-01-2018 23:54
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
This was a carefully researched book on the actions of the IPCC that claims that they used the top scientists in the world to write their 44 chapter Climate Bible.

Among other claims were that all papers used by the IPCC had to be peer reviewed. Now we won't go into the fact that most papers are peer reviewed by friends of the paper's authors that are so biased that even non-scientists can easily pick them apart making the peer review process hardly worthwhile but even supposing it has excellent results:

UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card
 all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
 IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
 each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F (59% and below)
 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project

https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf

After discovering that virtually every word in the IPCC report is not written by "the best scientists in the world" but often by nothing else but ecologist activist flunkies you can look at the peer review process here:

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf

Now peer reviewing is a good idea if it is done by unbiased and totally above board reviewers. The problem is that too often it is not.

So, actually a paper should stand on it's own integrity and not bear the crutch of someone else's reputation.

Now that more and more scientists jobs are not on the line for disagreeing with the environmentalists and the politicians seeking more power we can see the fraud of man-made global warming falling apart.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/01/150-non-global-warming-graphs-from-2017-pummel-claims-of-unusual-modern-warmth/#sthash.xOMSjuoT.dpbs

Our resident scumbucket litebrain is telling us that the world is dying and that all of the ice is melting. Doesn't seem to be the case.

http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/#sthash.WiG0rDYh.dpbs

What do you suppose nightmare will do when he can't tell himself he's the resident expert in things he hasn't the slightest understanding of?

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/16/taking-the-planets-temperature-how-are-global-temperatures-calculated/


WAke, Wake, wake,
How many times have I told you ? The IPCC deserve Sainthood. Were you their instructor ? It seems they have learned much from you ! After all, you do want to be a good person, right ? I know I do that's why I support them, so I can be that good person.
Yet if I agreed with you then I would be a good person as well. It gets so coonnnfffuuussssiiiinnnggg. Who do I need to agree with to be a good person ? You or them ?
LMAO !!!!


You know something Wake ? That felt good
04-01-2018 00:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3368)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
This was a carefully researched book on the actions of the IPCC that claims that they used the top scientists in the world to write their 44 chapter Climate Bible.

Among other claims were that all papers used by the IPCC had to be peer reviewed. Now we won't go into the fact that most papers are peer reviewed by friends of the paper's authors that are so biased that even non-scientists can easily pick them apart making the peer review process hardly worthwhile but even supposing it has excellent results:

UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card
 all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
 IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
 each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F (59% and below)
 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project

https://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/delinquentteenager_sample.pdf

After discovering that virtually every word in the IPCC report is not written by "the best scientists in the world" but often by nothing else but ecologist activist flunkies you can look at the peer review process here:

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf

Now peer reviewing is a good idea if it is done by unbiased and totally above board reviewers. The problem is that too often it is not.

So, actually a paper should stand on it's own integrity and not bear the crutch of someone else's reputation.

Now that more and more scientists jobs are not on the line for disagreeing with the environmentalists and the politicians seeking more power we can see the fraud of man-made global warming falling apart.

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/01/150-non-global-warming-graphs-from-2017-pummel-claims-of-unusual-modern-warmth/#sthash.xOMSjuoT.dpbs

Our resident scumbucket litebrain is telling us that the world is dying and that all of the ice is melting. Doesn't seem to be the case.

http://notrickszone.com/global-warming-disputed-300-graphs/#sthash.WiG0rDYh.dpbs

What do you suppose nightmare will do when he can't tell himself he's the resident expert in things he hasn't the slightest understanding of?

https://granthaminstitute.com/2015/10/16/taking-the-planets-temperature-how-are-global-temperatures-calculated/


WAke, Wake, wake,
How many times have I told you ? The IPCC deserve Sainthood. Were you their instructor ? It seems they have learned much from you ! After all, you do want to be a good person, right ? I know I do that's why I support them, so I can be that good person.
Yet if I agreed with you then I would be a good person as well. It gets so coonnnfffuuussssiiiinnnggg. Who do I need to agree with to be a good person ? You or them ?
LMAO !!!!


You know something Wake ? That felt good


We finally are putting these people who have been falsely placed on pedestals down upon the ground where they belong. To discover that a number of the "greatest scientists in the world" didn't complete their educations until 10 years or more after they wrote chapters in The Climate Bible is taking complete and total veracity forever from that organization.

Imagine an environmental activist with a BS in chemistry telling the world that they WOULD die if we didn't refuse development to the third world?

As far as I'm concerned Trump did exactly the right thing and the US should NEVER AGAIN be involved in any UN venture.




Join the debate In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Want to get punched in the face?708-05-2018 16:03
A Slap in the Face for Climate Change1109-01-2018 04:31
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
Is the IPCC Biased?13312-07-2017 18:37
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 20:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact