Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
Posted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 1:40 p
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 9, 2019 at 7:48 pm
Paul Plante says :
And to give us all a better feel for what is really going on here with respect to Nancy Pelosi and the so-called Paris Agreement and the IPCC, since most of it occurs behind closed doors so we do not have knowledge of what is being done, even though it directly impacts on our lives and our well-being, let us go to a NOAA puff piece entitled “Talking with IPCC Vice-chair Ko Barrett: On climate change and consensus building” by author Tom Di Liberto on November 6, 2018, to wit:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
This report investigates the impact that 1.5°C of global warming will have on the people, plants and animals that call Earth home and the pathways to limiting warming.
The report was a request in the Paris Agreement, driven by the concerns of many countries, especially in the Pacific Ocean, who could feel disproportionate impacts from warming below the 2°C threshold the climate negotiations have established as a target.
end quotes
Now, focus in on these words, people, because they are important to understanding that anything coming to us from the IPCC or Paris Agreement crowd, and this most definitely includes Democrat Nancy Pelosi, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, is based on contrived “science” to suit the needs of the politicians of the Paris Agreement crowd, which would include Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats she took with her to Madrid to surrender the United States to the IPCC.
And then we come to this in that NOAA puff-piece, to wit:
Additionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
end quotes
Other world goals, people, like eradicating poverty, and since the Democrats back in 1964 launched a WAR ON POVERTY in this country that they still have not won, and since it was estimated in 2015 that 13.5% of Americans (43.1 million) lived in poverty, with other scholars underscoring the number of people in the United States living in “near-poverty,” putting the number at around 100 million, or nearly a third of the U.S. population, it seems to me that instead of flying off to Madrid, where she had no business being, to join the Paris Agreement to eradicate world poverty, Nancy should be ending poverty here first.
Getting back to that NOAA puff-piece:
To learn more about this report and the process that created it, I talked with Ko Barrett, a Vice Chair of the IPCC, based in the U.S.
Ms. Barrett, who is also Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, has been working on climate for over two decades, representing the United States as a climate negotiator, including almost a decade as the lead U.S. negotiator on adaptation.
Now in her capacity as Vice Chair of the IPCC, she has helped bring this report together, convening groups to bring about consensus.
end quotes
Elsewhere, I have stated my opinion that this Ko Barrett has a serious conflict of interest here, trying to serve her political masters at the IPCC, versus maintaining the integrity of science at NOAA which has become a laughing stock after Sharpie-Gate, and thus, she should not be in charge of research at NOAA, which takes us to that interview, as follows:.
Q: Thank you for joining me.
You are currently the vice chair of the IPCC.
How did you come into that role and what does it mean?
Barrett: Thank you for your interest.
Since 2001, I had been a U.S. delegate to the IPCC as part of the U.S. government delegation.
In 2015, elections were being held for the new leadership team of IPCC.
The U.S. had always had a spot on the leadership team, so they put me forward for vice chair, and I was elected by acclamation.
end quotes
Who are the “they” who put this Ko Barrett forward for vice chair of the IPCC?
Does anyone have a clue?
Getting back to the interview and her further answer, we have:
There are 12 people who compromise the IPCC leadership team.
A chair, three vice chairs and two co-chairs for each of the four working groups or task forces.
The chair is the main representative for the organization.
The co-chairs produce the reports and do the bulk of the assessment work.
The three vice chairs sit in-between those two levels.
We assist with representational activities and work, especially during approval sessions, to convene groups to reach consensus on language.
end quotes
Focus on that statement “convene groups to reach consensus on language.”
In other words, to contrive the “science” that the political IPCC has need of at the moment, as we will see by returning to that interview, as follows:
Q: And what exactly does the IPCC do?
Barrett: The IPCC was formed in 1988 when the issue of climate change was just emerging as a possible challenge.
It is unique in that it is a scientific assessment body that is intergovernmental in nature.
It is sponsored by two organizations in the United Nations (UN) system: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Program.
So the way it functions is like nothing else.
We produce periodic assessments of the state of climate or special topics of interest to policy makers.
At various stages of production of the report, we put it out for expert and government review.
But the summary for policymakers is negotiated line by line and approved by governments.
This is a way to give the governments a chance to weigh in on the report, both generally and specifically.
The summary for policymakers is a discrete enough piece of the report to actually negotiate with governments, without having to put the whole thing up for negotiation.
It [the IPCC] is this incredible handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it an authoritative perspective on climate science like no other.
end quotes
And it is that handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it anything it produces highly suspect as politically-contrived “science,” so that it is not an authoritative perspective on climate science, at all – to the contrary, it is perverting climate science for political reasons.
So why are Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for that?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207231
Paul Plante says :
And to give us all a better feel for what is really going on here with respect to Nancy Pelosi and the so-called Paris Agreement and the IPCC, since most of it occurs behind closed doors so we do not have knowledge of what is being done, even though it directly impacts on our lives and our well-being, let us go to a NOAA puff piece entitled “Talking with IPCC Vice-chair Ko Barrett: On climate change and consensus building” by author Tom Di Liberto on November 6, 2018, to wit:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C.
This report investigates the impact that 1.5°C of global warming will have on the people, plants and animals that call Earth home and the pathways to limiting warming.
The report was a request in the Paris Agreement, driven by the concerns of many countries, especially in the Pacific Ocean, who could feel disproportionate impacts from warming below the 2°C threshold the climate negotiations have established as a target.
end quotes
Now, focus in on these words, people, because they are important to understanding that anything coming to us from the IPCC or Paris Agreement crowd, and this most definitely includes Democrat Nancy Pelosi, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which recently released a special report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, is based on contrived “science” to suit the needs of the politicians of the Paris Agreement crowd, which would include Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats she took with her to Madrid to surrender the United States to the IPCC.
And then we come to this in that NOAA puff-piece, to wit:
Additionally, the IPCC found that limiting warming to 1.5°C can go hand-in-hand with achieving other world goals, like achieving sustainable development and eradicating poverty.
end quotes
Other world goals, people, like eradicating poverty, and since the Democrats back in 1964 launched a WAR ON POVERTY in this country that they still have not won, and since it was estimated in 2015 that 13.5% of Americans (43.1 million) lived in poverty, with other scholars underscoring the number of people in the United States living in “near-poverty,” putting the number at around 100 million, or nearly a third of the U.S. population, it seems to me that instead of flying off to Madrid, where she had no business being, to join the Paris Agreement to eradicate world poverty, Nancy should be ending poverty here first.
Getting back to that NOAA puff-piece:
To learn more about this report and the process that created it, I talked with Ko Barrett, a Vice Chair of the IPCC, based in the U.S.
Ms. Barrett, who is also Deputy Director of NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Office, has been working on climate for over two decades, representing the United States as a climate negotiator, including almost a decade as the lead U.S. negotiator on adaptation.
Now in her capacity as Vice Chair of the IPCC, she has helped bring this report together, convening groups to bring about consensus.
end quotes
Elsewhere, I have stated my opinion that this Ko Barrett has a serious conflict of interest here, trying to serve her political masters at the IPCC, versus maintaining the integrity of science at NOAA which has become a laughing stock after Sharpie-Gate, and thus, she should not be in charge of research at NOAA, which takes us to that interview, as follows:.
Q: Thank you for joining me.
You are currently the vice chair of the IPCC.
How did you come into that role and what does it mean?
Barrett: Thank you for your interest.
Since 2001, I had been a U.S. delegate to the IPCC as part of the U.S. government delegation.
In 2015, elections were being held for the new leadership team of IPCC.
The U.S. had always had a spot on the leadership team, so they put me forward for vice chair, and I was elected by acclamation.
end quotes
Who are the “they” who put this Ko Barrett forward for vice chair of the IPCC?
Does anyone have a clue?
Getting back to the interview and her further answer, we have:
There are 12 people who compromise the IPCC leadership team.
A chair, three vice chairs and two co-chairs for each of the four working groups or task forces.
The chair is the main representative for the organization.
The co-chairs produce the reports and do the bulk of the assessment work.
The three vice chairs sit in-between those two levels.
We assist with representational activities and work, especially during approval sessions, to convene groups to reach consensus on language.
end quotes
Focus on that statement “convene groups to reach consensus on language.”
In other words, to contrive the “science” that the political IPCC has need of at the moment, as we will see by returning to that interview, as follows:
Q: And what exactly does the IPCC do?
Barrett: The IPCC was formed in 1988 when the issue of climate change was just emerging as a possible challenge.
It is unique in that it is a scientific assessment body that is intergovernmental in nature.
It is sponsored by two organizations in the United Nations (UN) system: the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UN Environment Program.
So the way it functions is like nothing else.
We produce periodic assessments of the state of climate or special topics of interest to policy makers.
At various stages of production of the report, we put it out for expert and government review.
But the summary for policymakers is negotiated line by line and approved by governments.
This is a way to give the governments a chance to weigh in on the report, both generally and specifically.
The summary for policymakers is a discrete enough piece of the report to actually negotiate with governments, without having to put the whole thing up for negotiation.
It [the IPCC] is this incredible handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it an authoritative perspective on climate science like no other.
end quotes
And it is that handshake between scientists and decision makers that makes it anything it produces highly suspect as politically-contrived “science,” so that it is not an authoritative perspective on climate science, at all – to the contrary, it is perverting climate science for political reasons.
So why are Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats for that?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207231