Notícias e actualidades
Clima, Energia e Políticas Publicas (Maior fraude do Século XXI)
-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 19 outubro 2018
@tostex
Prefere continuar com as picardias do que ler o PDF .....LOL está bem, é um direito que lhe assiste
Por mim termino com uma frase do Mark Twain "Nunca discutas com um (inserir o que lhe apetecer ) Ele arasta-te ao nível dele e depois vence-te em experiência.-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 19 outubro 2018 editado
Dedicatoria especial
1. The Climategate scandal proved that key data involving man-made climate change was manipulated
(leak de 1000 emails do IPCC já públicos no forum
2. The Climategate scandal was given new life in 2011, with the release of new emails.
Nova ronda de emails desta vez 5000 emails a confirmar a fraude das temperaturas
3. NASA may have also been involved in manipulating data to serve the narrative of man-made climate change. The Washington Times reported (....)
Escândalo da nasa sobre as temperaturas de 1934, 1998 e 2006
4. NASA also declared 2014 to be the hottest year on record – despite the fact that they were only 38 percent sure about it.
Mais um escândalo da NASA aonde publicaram que 2014 seria o ano mais quente de sempre
5. There is no evidence that the Earth has been warming in recent years.
Mais evidencias sobre el nino e el nino não estarem relacionadas com a CO2/Temperatura
6. The left likes to claim that 97 percent of scientists support the concept of man-made climate change. It's likely closer to 43 percent
Mais evidencias que o IPCC tenta manipular opinião publica, apenas 43% dos cientistas acredita no global warming, eu disse para lerem o PDF nao disse ?
7. The amount of Arctic sea ice has become quite high.
O artic não esta a derreter o mes de setembro 2016 foi um dos mais altos de 2016
8. Money from the federal government and leftist organizations fuel a lot of misinformation from man-made global warming alarmists.
Mais um caso a juntar aos 100 mil milhões que o IPCC e a união europeia vai receber até 2020, quem paga ? os contribuintes deste e doutros países
9. It is patently absurd to link Hurricane Matthew to climate change
Mais um caso aonde tentam ligar os furaçoes ao aquecimento global, ainda a umas paginas atras coloquei outros links para disparates semelhantes
fonte: https://www.dailywire.com/news/9767/9-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-hoax-aaron-bandlerColocado por: AlarmesdoMecoPor mim termino com uma frase do Mark Twain "Nunca discutas com um (inserir o que lhe apetecer ) Ele arasta-te ao nível dele e depois vence-te em experiência.
Eu termino com uma resposta também: o Mark Twain nunca proferiu essa frase, nem as suas interpretações dos artigos são remotamente correctas.
Pelo menos é coerente, nunca sai do erro, ao contrário do relógio avariado.Independentemente de ser ou não uma fraude, se com isso fizer com que:
- se mudem de hábitos, apostando na poupança (lâmpadas LED e aparelhos mais eficientes), evitando desperdícios e produtos pouco eficientes energéticamente,
- apostando em energias renováveis em vez do petróleo/carvão/gás
- meios de transportes que não libertam poluição no seu uso e mais eficazes a nível energético
- consciência para construções mais acolhedoras, com mais conforto e com menos necessidades energéticas
- aumentar o consumo de produtos locais mesmo que mais caros
não tenho nada contra.
Se é um exagero certas afirmações orgamentais e outras da situação global.... não sei.
Mas sei que com falinhas mansas nunca se faz nada para se mudar.
Veja-se o caso de fumadores de longa data, sabendo que faz mal (ok, admitamos que faz :-) ) a eles próprios e aos que vivem com ele, e só apanhando um valente cag*ço (e mesmo assim nem todos) é que tentam reduzir ou deixar de fumar.
Isto para mudar de hábitos não se vai com falinahs mansas...-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 19 outubro 2018 editado
@mafgod
Também não tenho nada contra para que as mudanças sejam para melhor, mais ecológicas, mais silencio nas cidades etc etc, mas que seja feito conscientemente e planeado, não porque uns países acordaram reduzir as emissões a zero até 2050.
E também é certo que ninguém vai endividar a familia com créditos e financiamento em VE, paineis solares, baterias, ventoinhas eólicas, lâmpadas led, electrodomésticos classe AAA+, tudo ao mesmo tempo, ao ponto da divida ir para os filhos pagarem...
Imaginem que no bairro aonde vivem , uma maioria administrativa decidia medidas extremas que para acederem á v/ própria casa teriam de ter um VE
Imaginem que teriam de pagar estacionamento á porta de casa se tivessem um CI
Imaginem que o vosso carro diesel/gasolina teriam de pagar uma taxa do carbono ao condomínio.
imaginem que a administração do bairro obrigava a todos os moradores ( tivessem VE ou não) a pagar 0,4kwh por todos os carregamentos feito pelos outros VE do bairro (desconto)
imaginem ainda que uma empresa privada queria instalar e gerar energia Eólica para esse bairro e a administração decidia que os todos os moradores se iriam se endividar com mais credito e pagariam até 40% do parque eolico ao privado.
Imaginem que todos os moradores desse bairro já estavam tão endividados (pois tinham saído de uma recessão/desemprego etc ) mas a Banca continuava a injectar dinheiro sob o risco do de todas as famílias do bairro falirem, ou deixarem de pagar as suas casas e os seus dividendos.
Gostariam de viver num bairro assim ?Colocado por: AlarmesdoMecoGostariam de viver num bairro assim ?
Se não concordasse, se não pudesse, se não podia alterar nada.... mudava de bairro. :)- Bricoleiro
- 19 outubro 2018
E ainda há quem duvide que andam aí uns bem feitores a fazer do CO2 um negócio.
https://www.dn.pt/sociedade/interior/suspeitos-defraude-com-taxa-de-carbono-condenados-a-oito-anos-5271141.html
A fraude teve lugar no mercado europeu de licenças de emissão de carbono projetado, destacado pela luta contra o aquecimento global e reconhecido como o primeiro mercado internacional na área das alterações climáticas, tendo sido criado para a redução de emissões de gases com efeito de estufa.
O esquema consistia em comprar cotas de emissões de CO2 (Dióxido de Carbono) em países estrangeiros e prosseguir à sua venda, em França, a um preço com o IVA incluído, para depois investirem em fundos que serviriam para uma nova operação. Assim, o IVA nunca foi pago ao Estado.Maior parque eólico flutuante do mundo será português. E a tecnologia é para exportar.
https://www.dn.pt/dinheiro/interior/edp-quer-exportar-tecnologia-do-maior-parque-eolico-flutuante-do-mundo-10034751.html
só aquela palavra flutuante até me dá arrepios,não deve passar um inverno que não esteja tudo no fundo do mar.
faz-me lembrar aquela treta do Pelamis que veio para póvoa do varzjm e que foi só para derreter dinheiro,só olhar para aquilo via-se logo que na primeira tempestade partia-se tudoColocado por: BricoleiroE ainda há quem duvide que andam aí uns bem feitores a fazer do CO2 um negócio.
Os vigaristas fazem vigarices com tudo o que for possível. O CO2 não é exceção.Nem o petróleo é excepção, onde existe o maior e mais organizado cartel do mundo-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 22 outubro 2018 editado
Mais uma prova inequívoca que o IPCC manda e desmanda conforme a agenda politica
Good evening. My name is Donna Laframboise. Unlike most of the speakers at this remarkable event, I am not a scientist. I’m an investigative journalist who has spent the past 6 years examining the climate debate.I’m not a scientist immersed in these matters, so I’m not equipped to weigh and measure the full significance of this new definition. But it appears immediately evident that an explicit assumption has been embedded into it despite the fact that the scientists themselves chose not to go there.
The glossary definitions of other key concepts are also being altered (see pages 15-16 here):
global mean surface temperature
global mean surface air temperature
carbon dioxide removal
mitigation (of climate change)
negative emissionsScience loses. Politics win. That’s how things work in IPCC land.
Step 1: experts write a report
Step 2: experts draft a summary
Step 3: third parties (non-experts such as lawyers and diplomats representing UN recognized nations) attend secret, off-limits-to-the-media meetings where the summary gets re-written
Step 4: these same third parties vote to “approve” their re-write, thereby giving it official status
Step 5: the re-write is released to the world at a press conference – voilà the Summary for Policymakers
Step 6: officials revisit the original, full-length document and make 16 pages worth of changes
Many of these changes appear to be trivial. But if nothing of significance is going on why are these meetings secret?
More to the point: On what planet is it OK for politically-determined definitions to supersede those written by actual scientists?
As the author of two books about the IPCC, I’ve spent years trying to explain that this preposterous organization was designed to function in this manner and has done so for 30 years. It should never be mistaken for a scientific body.
fonte: http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/10/22/science-loses-politics-win-un-ipcc-is-redefining-global-warming-at-the-11th-hour-changes-made-to-report-to-ensure-consistency-with-the-approved-summary-for-policymakers/
a fonte original aqui : https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2018/10/22/ipcc-redefining-global-warming-at-the-11th-hour/
PS: This blog is written by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise.
Também a ler
O editor falso do IPCC
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/09/the-ipccs-fake-review-editor/
E também "3 coisas que os cientistas devem saber acerca do IPCC
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/09/01/3-things-scientists-need-to-know-about-the-ipcc/https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/ ? Que sítio tão credível e tão isento... (not)
Basta dar uma vista de olhos pelos artigos que lá estão para perceber que é pura propaganda, que faz parte da agenda de extrema direita dos EUA. Até há artigos a relativizar os ataque armados nas escolas e a colocar em causa o número de mortos!-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 22 outubro 2018
Colocado por: euhttps://nofrakkingconsensus.com/? Que sítio tão credível e tão isento... (not)
Basta dar uma vista de olhos pelos artigos que lá estão para perceber que é pura propaganda, que faz parte da agenda de extrema direita dos EUA. Até há artigos a relativizar os ataque armados nas escolas e a colocar em causa o número de mortos!
Sobre o Author-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 22 outubro 2018 editado
No artigo da Jornalista, 3 coisas que os cientistas deviam saber, é um "abre olhos" para as pessoas terem uma ideia de como os Reports do IPCC são geridos
A) Report científico de 7000 paginas
B) reduzido para um Summary for Policymakers de 20 a 30 paginas
C) Desse sumario, na sua em maioria os países da UN com uma maioria de políticos, especialista, burocratas e uma minoria de cientistas fazem o report aonde cada pais, acrescenta ou tira uma palavra ou frase , relatorio esse que é enviado á imprensa.
Reparem.. do relatório de 20 ou 30 paginas, se no final não estiver de acordo com relatório cientifico de 700 paginas, o IPCC vai e ALTERA O RELATÓRIO CIENTIFICO.
Isto cabe na cabeça de alguém ? se eu fosse cientista ficava revoltado...como muitos cientistas já ficaram quando abrem os olhos (ja reportado neste forum)
E dai nasce o fundo de 100 mil milhoes até 2020 acordado na cimeira de paris
Como diz a jornalista muito bem, os Sponsors é que indicam o que é incluido ou não nos relatórios, e isto de cientifico não tem nada....não é ciência, são agendas políticas.
Here’s a 2007 news clipping in which the IPCC’s chairman explains to a reporter that the reason the Summary has been released before the full report, is because the IPCC needs to ensure that the report is consistent with the Summary. After the political meeting takes place, they go back and change the original report. In 2013, following one of these meetings, 9 out of 14 chapters had to be revisited. In Chapter 11, more than 20 changes needed to be made.
As a journalist, I find this bizarre. If I spend months writing a long, investigative magazine article in which I’ve worked hard to describe matters accurately, there is no way on Earth it would be OK for the sponsors of the process – the magazine’s advertisers – to then sit around and negotiate between themselves what should and should not be included in my magazine article. Absolutely out-of-the-question. But this is normal operating procedure at the IPCC.-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 22 outubro 2018
A ultima chance para salvar o Mundo da destruição foi em Novembro de 2000.....espera...espera....foi em Dezembro de 2009.......espera...espera foi em Outubro de 2018
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2018/10/10/the-last-chance-climate-saloon/-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 23 outubro 2018 editado
E quando é feito uma investigação independente pela The InterAcademy Council (IAC) – an international collection of science entities – para examinar o trabalho do IPCC em 2010...os resultados (estão á vista) Um desastre e BIAS COMPLETO.The preliminary scope and outline of IPCC assessment reports is devel- oped by an invited group of scientists, other subject-matter experts, and government representatives. A detailed outline is then created by the Bureau and approved by the Panel. The involvement of both scientists and governments in the scoping process helps ensure that the assessment addresses issues both that can be supported by the existing scientific litera- ture and that will be useful for supporting government decision making (NRC, 2007). IPCC’s scoping process was generally supported by those who were interviewed or responded to the Committee’s questionnaire (Appendix B). However, these individuals raised two concerns about the scoping process. First, the scoping process itself and the selection of participants for the scoping meeting(s) remain somewhat opaque to those who have not participated. Given that the assessment process is receiving close scrutiny and that the scoping process has a major influence on the mandate and goals for the assessment, it is essential that scoping be as transparent as possible.
Recommendation
►The IPCC should make the process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping meetings more transparent.Yet in interviews and responses to the Committee’s questionnaire, some scientists expressed frustration that they have not been nominated, despite their scientific qualifications and demonstrated willingness to participate. Frustration was particularly strong among developing-country scientists, who felt that some of their Government Focal Points do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications.
The absence of a transparent author-selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection can raise questions of bias and undermine the confidence of scientists and others in the credibility of the assessment
Recommendation
►The IPCC should establish a formal set of criteria and processes for selecting Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors.A concern raised by some Working Group II scientists is that the selection of the author team for each regional chapter often overlooks some of the best experts if they do not happen to live in that region.
Recommendation
►The IPCC should make every effort to engage local experts on the author teams of the regional chapters of the Working Group II report, but should also engage experts from countries outside of the region when they can provide an essential contribution to the assessment.
Está é lindaaaaaaaaaa....a usarem blogs, artigos de jornal.....isto de cientifico não tem NADA..Moreover, a search through the Working Group reports of the fourth assessment found few instances of information flagged as unpublished or non-peer-reviewed.
For example, a number of respondents to the Committee’s questionnaire requested clearer guidelines on the nature of acceptable unpublished or non-peer- reviewed sources.
Blogs, newspaper articles, press releases, advocacy group reports, and proprietary data were thought by many to be inappro- priate.
Recommendation
►The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non- peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.
Como se sabe...está tudo aqui, a influencia dos relatórios e dos seus autores..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 spec- ified time frame and its impacts on the water cycle.
Therefore, Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors have considerable influence over which viewpoints will be discussed in the process. Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.
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.
► Lead Authors should explicitly document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors should satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.
BOMMMMBA......Leiam isto..Other challenges created by an open review include the possibility of premature release of conclusions by the press and orchestrated efforts by those with strong views about climate change to overwhelm the system
Recommendation
►The IPCC should adopt a more targeted and effective process for responding to reviewer comments. In such a process, Review Editors would prepare a written summary of the most significant issues raised by reviewers shortly after review comments have been received. Authors would be required to provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors, abbreviated responses to all noneditorial comments, and no written responses to editorial comments.
BOMMMMMBA 2......Os comentarios aos Glaciares....desapareceram.With a tight schedule for completing revisions, authors do not always do an adequate job of revising the text, and Review Editors do not always require an explanation
20 Climate change assessments for rejected comments. In the case of the incorrect projection of the disapppearance of the Himalayan glaciers, for example, some of the review comments were not adequately considered and the justifications were not completely explained (see Box 2.1)
Recommendation
►The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.
E a stickada final...O BIAS do IPCC...... o Working Group Co-chairs use fazem a preparação dos reports, são so mesmos que escolhem os Editors que fazem revisões.
E dizem, mesmo que as recomendações deste relatorio fossem beneficias para o processo de review, AINDA ASSIM NÃO SERIA UM PROCESSO TOTALMENTE INDEPENDENTE..Although implementing the above recommendations would greatly strengthen the review process, it would not make the review process truly independent because the Working Group Co-chairs, who have overall responsibility for the preparation of the reports, are also responsible for selecting Review Editors.
O Summary for Policymakers, o relatório uma "venda" aos governos.....Mais fundos....Sigam o dinheiro LOLEach Summary for Policymakers is written by a team of scientists and reviewed by experts and government representatives as part of the second draft of the Working Group report. Government representatives then negotiate and agree to the final wording line by line.
This process is intended to result in language that can be understood by policymakers and to increase the chance that governments will ‘buy in’ to the key conclusions of the assessment.
As preocupações das Motivações Politicas.....está aqui tudo.Although most respondents agreed that government buy-in is important, many were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated.
Recommendation
►The IPCC should revise its process for the approval of the Summary for Policymakers so that governments provide written comments prior to the Plenary.
Mais outra BOMBAA recent review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, for example, observed that the Working Group II Summary for Policymakers in the fourth assessment is more focused on the negative impacts of climate change than the underlying report, an approach agreed to by participating governments
Fonte: http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Chapter%202%20-%20Evaluation%20of%20IPCC’s%20Assessment%20Processes.pdf
PS: PESSOAL GELADINHOS COM A TESTA SABE BEM ?Colocado por: AlarmesdoMecoQue vantagens tras para quem le o topico a troca de picardias ?
Colocado por: AlarmesdoMecoPS: PESSOAL GELADINHOS COM A TESTA SABE BEM ?
Mais uma incoerência...-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 23 outubro 2018 editado
Colocado por: eu
Mais uma incoerência...
Pouco me importa o que achas incoerente, eu foco-me no assunto, não nas pessoas, claro que gosto de deixar uma piada no final se o argumento é bastante forte.
Ninguém neste forum consegui até agora ter um argumento contrario suficientemente conveniente sobre como é feito o relatorio do IPCC
E para reforçar o que disse acima, deixo aqui o chamado chamado IPCC Secret santa Leaks, que é um relatorio interno dos reviwers do IPPC, que supostamente nunca devia ter sido visto pelo publico em que é demostrado, o que os cientistas deviam ou não escrever, que estudos sobre o clima deviam ser aprovados ou rejeitados para o IPCC cumprir a sua agenda politica.
São 102 paginas, existe aqui um resumo
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/10/cogs-in-the-climate-machine/But the Secret Santa leak of three IPCC data sticks sheds a different light on this organization. It reveals that the individuals who help write its reports don’t, in fact, evaluate the scientific literature and then record their conclusions in a straightforward manner.
Rather, they’re part of a bureaucracy – one that spends a lot of time worrying about matters that have nothing to do with science.
Some of the internal documents on these data sticks were never intended to be seen by the public. Among them is a collection of interim reports, written by Review Editors.BUREAUCRATIC NIGHTMARE
These reports are the most interesting reading I’ve encountered so far on the Secret Santa sticks. Among other things, they make it clear that the scientists involved with the IPCC aren’t at liberty to write their own chapter as they see fit.
For example, expert reviewers who read the draft version of Chapter 4, titled Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems, said its title is confusing. In their opinion, the word “systems” should be replaced by the word “ecosystems” (comments 4, 10, 14, and 53).But the scientists responsible for that chapter can’t make this simple change. As the Review Editors point out in their joint report:
The comments appear to be quite valid, but if followed through would require the thorny path of changing a plenary approved formulation…the authors need to reflect and make a proposal that will allow the needed steps by all IPCC actors and bodies, up to the plenary if necessary, to become involved to resolve this issue… [p. 8 of this 102-page PDF]
In plain English this means that the titles of each chapter (as well as chapter sub-sections) were decided long ago. They were determined by an IPCC meeting attended by senior officials representing different countries.
A change as minor as this one – involving only three letters – cannot be made without petitioning multiple layers of the IPCC’s bureaucracy.As naive members of the public, we imagine that “the world’s top climate scientists” would be held in such high esteem at the IPCC that they’d be the ones determining what is important and where emphasis should be placed.
But these scientists are actually told what to write about. They’re told how many pages they must say it in. And they’re urged again and again to ensure that their chapter doesn’t diverge from what earlier IPCC reports have already declared – or what other chapters will say.Big picture, there will be no surprises. The direction in which this report is headed was determined decades ago. Rather than being authentic scientific documents, therefore, IPCC reports are merely Lego blocks.
e aqui podem fazer o download
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/all_re_reports.pdf
Aqui podem ler a parte 1
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/08/the-secret-santa-leak/
e aqui podem ler a parte 3
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/09/are-a-third-of-ipcc-review-editors-mia/-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 23 outubro 2018 editado
Então este PDF de + 600 paginas do IPCC são documentos internos da organização...A Jornalista reforçou a Bold alguma palavras para que o leitor perceba as intenções políticas do IPCC.The remarks below are collected in a massive 678-page PDF here. They represent answers to a questionnaire distributed by an external committee that investigated the IPCC last year. The names of the respondents were removed before this document was made public.
International action on climate change needs universal government “buy-in” on the state of knowledge. The purpose of the IPCC is to provide the mechanism for this and, overall, it does this quite well. (p. 672)
This is the key objective of the IPCC: to achieve ‘buy-in‘ by all countries to a common view of the current state of knowledge. (p. 670)
Government buy-in is the main raison d’etre of the IPCC. (p. 173)
The line-by-line approval sessions…ensure that there is no more discussion about the science in the climate negotiations… (p. 583)
The process is difficult, but I see that it serves its purpose of binding governments to the scientific facts. (p. 112)
Without this consensus process that ensures buy-in from all participating national delegations the value of the IPCC products would be diminished. (p. 588)
…the intergovernmental part of the IPCC is essential. Countries need to buy into the conclusions word for word if they are to be the basis of subsequent negotiations. (p. 344)
The IPCC is a successful organization that with scarce resources produced policy relevant assessments, which are critical for the climate change negotiation… (p. 199)
If IPCC was a purely scientific body, then there would be no reason for countries to ‘buy in‘ to the conclusions, and the possibility for misinterpreting the conclusions (or simply ignoring them) would be high. (p. 451)
There are obvious concerns with regard to line by line approval of the summary of a scientific document by government representatives. However, on the other hand the key reason for IPCC‘s influence has been engagement and buy in by the governments. I am much less concerned, compared to others, about this aspect of the IPCC process. (p. 365)
The IPCC is a strange hybrid. Therefore necessarily messy. But also necessary to get buy in. (p. 413)
Although I have been critical of the nature of the governmental input to IPCC in the past, I now regard it as necessary, if governments are going to buy in to the conclusions of the assessments. (p. 668)
…governments are absolutely in charge of the IPCC process and clearly want to control it themselves and will continue to do so. One could imagine a scientist-controlled Panel…but it is not going to happen. The great advantage of the current government-controlled IPCC is that the governments cannot easily reject the IPCC findings after the fact…As a prime example, every word of the Summaries for Policymakers has been unanimously approved by all governments. The price paid for this government buy-in can be steep, but that is just a fact of life. (pp. 85-86)
This is one of the strong points of the process. Because of government involvement, IPCC reports the politically-relevant questions, which are often not the most scientifically relevant questions. Given the purpose it serves, political relevance is more important than scientific relevance. (p. 44)
Esta ultima frase é muito forte....Relevância política é mais importante que relevância cientifica.
A todos os membros ou anónimos estão a ler ou seguem este topico, lembre-se:
O IPCC apresenta-se com grande pompa e circunstancia como a organização que faz a review de 6000 relatórios científicos sobre o estado planeta, que indirectamente vai afectar a vida de milhões de pessoas..
No fundo e como está escrito nos ultimos posts,são reviews manipuladas, adulteradas, com BIAS, com interesse e agenda politico, usando apenas os estudos favoráveis ao que querem fabricar e vender ao governos.
O resultado final que nos afecta directamente é o que o IPCC, o CLIMA, a ENERGIA e as POLÍTICAS PUBLICAS são a MAIOR FRAUDE DO SECULO XXI
fonte: https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/26/the-sneaky-not-so-secret-purpose-of-the-ipcc/-
AlarmesdoMeco
- 24 outubro 2018
0.1092 seg. NEW-
