Climate: The Movie

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Do you think that melting sea ice increases the sea level -- yes or no. I am telling you that melting sea ice does not raise the sea level.
Womble can’t answer yes or no. He just tells lies
 
I'm inclined to believe these people:


We are very grateful for the expertise, rigour and dedication shown throughout by the volunteer Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors, working across scientific disciplines in each chapter of the report, with essential help by the many Contributing Authors. The Review Editors have played a critical role in assisting the author teams and ensuring the integrity of the review process. We express our sincere appreciation to all the expert and government reviewers. A special thanks goes to the Chapter Scientists of this Report who went above and beyond what was expected of them: Neville Ellis, Tania Guillén Bolaños, Daniel Huppmann, Kiane de Kleijne, Richard Millar and Chandni Singh.

We would also like to thank the three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Vice-Chairs Ko Barrett, Thelma Krug, and Youba Sokona as well as the members of the WGI, WGII and WGIII Bureaux for their assistance, guidance, and wisdom throughout the preparation of the Report: Amjad Abdulla, Edvin Aldrian, Carlo Carraro, Diriba Korecha Dadi, Fatima Driouech, Andreas Fischlin, Gregory Flato, Jan Fuglestvedt, Mark Howden, Nagmeldin G. E. Mahmoud, Carlos Mendez, Joy Jacqueline Pereira, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Andy Reisinger, Roberto Sánchez Rodríguez, Sergey Semenov, Muhammad I. Tariq, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Carolina Vera, Pius Yanda, Noureddine Yassaa, and Taha Zatari.

Our heartfelt thanks go to the hosts and organizers of the scoping meeting, the four Special Report on 1.5°C Lead Author Meetings and the 48th Session of the IPCC. We gratefully acknowledge the support from the host countries and institutions: World Meteorological Organization, Switzerland; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Brazil; Met Office and the University of Exeter, the United Kingdom; Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Sweden; the Ministry of Environment Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism, the National Climate Change Committee in the Department of Meteorological Services and the Botswana Global Environmental Change Committee at the University of Botswana, Botswana; and Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) and Incheon Metropolitan City, the Republic of Korea. The support provided by governments and institutions, as well as through contributions to the IPCC Trust Fund, is thankfully acknowledged as it enabled the participation of the author teams in the preparation of the Report. The efficient operation of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit was made possible by the generous financial support provided by the government of France and administrative and information technology support from the Université Paris Saclay (France), Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL) and the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE). We thank the Norwegian Environment Agency for supporting the preparation of the graphics for the Summary for Policymakers. We thank the UNEP Library, who supported authors throughout the drafting process by providing literature for the assessment.

We would also like to thank Abdalah Mokssit, Secretary of the IPCC, and the staff of the IPCC Secretariat: Kerstin Stendahl, Jonathan Lynn, Sophie Schlingemann, Judith Ewa, Mxolisi Shongwe, Jesbin Baidya, Werani Zabula, Nina Peeva, Joelle Fernandez, Annie Courtin, Laura Biagioni and Oksana Ekzarkho. Thanks are due to Elhousseine Gouaini who served as the conference officer for the 48th Session of the IPCC.

Finally, our particular appreciation goes to the Working Group Technical Support Units whose tireless dedication, professionalism and enthusiasm led the production of this Special Report. This Report could not have been prepared without the commitment of members of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit, all new to the IPCC, who rose to the unprecedented Sixth Assessment Report challenge and were pivotal in all aspects of the preparation of the Report: Yang Chen, Sarah Connors, Melissa Gomis, Elisabeth Lonnoy, Robin Matthews, Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, Clotilde Péan, Roz Pidcock, Anna Pirani, Nicholas Reay, Tim Waterfield, and Xiao Zhou. Our warmest thanks go to the collegial and collaborative support provided by Marlies Craig, Andrew Okem, Jan Petzold, Melinda Tignor and Nora Weyer from the WGII Technical Support Unit and Bhushan Kankal, Suvadip Neogi and Joana Portugal Pereira from the WGIII Technical Support Unit. A special thanks goes to Kenny Coventry, Harmen Gudde, Irene Lorenzoni, and Stuart Jenkins for their support with the figures in the Summary for Policymakers, as well as Nigel Hawtin for graphical support of the Report. In addition, the following contributions are gratefully acknowledged: Jatinder Padda (copy edit), Melissa Dawes (copy edit), Marilyn Anderson (index), Vincent Grégoire (layout) and Sarah le Rouzic (intern).

 
Peer reviewed, just means agreed upon by someone with the same opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.


Only for the papers that "pass" peer review.

Depending on the field, rejection rates at peer review range at around 50%.

Previously-accepted papers are also latterly rejected, as new evidence / scientific advancement is presented.

This is the nature of science.
 
Sponsored Links
Do you think that melting sea ice increases the sea level -- yes or no. I am telling you that melting sea ice does not raise the sea level.
If by sea ice you mean floating, agree, it doesn't. If the ice is on land (Antarctica) it does.
 
Yes the earths 100,000 year cycle and the other planets involvement in it - something that all climate alarmists ignore or are just ignorant of.
I've read what you have written, but was hoping for something more than just waffle. Would you like to explain or just continue with your 'magic beans' therory?
 
I'm inclined to believe these people:


We are very grateful for the expertise, rigour and dedication shown throughout by the volunteer Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors, working across scientific disciplines in each chapter of the report, with essential help by the many Contributing Authors. The Review Editors have played a critical role in assisting the author teams and ensuring the integrity of the review process. We express our sincere appreciation to all the expert and government reviewers. A special thanks goes to the Chapter Scientists of this Report who went above and beyond what was expected of them: Neville Ellis, Tania Guillén Bolaños, Daniel Huppmann, Kiane de Kleijne, Richard Millar and Chandni Singh.

We would also like to thank the three Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Vice-Chairs Ko Barrett, Thelma Krug, and Youba Sokona as well as the members of the WGI, WGII and WGIII Bureaux for their assistance, guidance, and wisdom throughout the preparation of the Report: Amjad Abdulla, Edvin Aldrian, Carlo Carraro, Diriba Korecha Dadi, Fatima Driouech, Andreas Fischlin, Gregory Flato, Jan Fuglestvedt, Mark Howden, Nagmeldin G. E. Mahmoud, Carlos Mendez, Joy Jacqueline Pereira, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Andy Reisinger, Roberto Sánchez Rodríguez, Sergey Semenov, Muhammad I. Tariq, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Carolina Vera, Pius Yanda, Noureddine Yassaa, and Taha Zatari.

Our heartfelt thanks go to the hosts and organizers of the scoping meeting, the four Special Report on 1.5°C Lead Author Meetings and the 48th Session of the IPCC. We gratefully acknowledge the support from the host countries and institutions: World Meteorological Organization, Switzerland; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Brazil; Met Office and the University of Exeter, the United Kingdom; Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Sweden; the Ministry of Environment Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism, the National Climate Change Committee in the Department of Meteorological Services and the Botswana Global Environmental Change Committee at the University of Botswana, Botswana; and Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA) and Incheon Metropolitan City, the Republic of Korea. The support provided by governments and institutions, as well as through contributions to the IPCC Trust Fund, is thankfully acknowledged as it enabled the participation of the author teams in the preparation of the Report. The efficient operation of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit was made possible by the generous financial support provided by the government of France and administrative and information technology support from the Université Paris Saclay (France), Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL) and the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE). We thank the Norwegian Environment Agency for supporting the preparation of the graphics for the Summary for Policymakers. We thank the UNEP Library, who supported authors throughout the drafting process by providing literature for the assessment.

We would also like to thank Abdalah Mokssit, Secretary of the IPCC, and the staff of the IPCC Secretariat: Kerstin Stendahl, Jonathan Lynn, Sophie Schlingemann, Judith Ewa, Mxolisi Shongwe, Jesbin Baidya, Werani Zabula, Nina Peeva, Joelle Fernandez, Annie Courtin, Laura Biagioni and Oksana Ekzarkho. Thanks are due to Elhousseine Gouaini who served as the conference officer for the 48th Session of the IPCC.

Finally, our particular appreciation goes to the Working Group Technical Support Units whose tireless dedication, professionalism and enthusiasm led the production of this Special Report. This Report could not have been prepared without the commitment of members of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit, all new to the IPCC, who rose to the unprecedented Sixth Assessment Report challenge and were pivotal in all aspects of the preparation of the Report: Yang Chen, Sarah Connors, Melissa Gomis, Elisabeth Lonnoy, Robin Matthews, Wilfran Moufouma-Okia, Clotilde Péan, Roz Pidcock, Anna Pirani, Nicholas Reay, Tim Waterfield, and Xiao Zhou. Our warmest thanks go to the collegial and collaborative support provided by Marlies Craig, Andrew Okem, Jan Petzold, Melinda Tignor and Nora Weyer from the WGII Technical Support Unit and Bhushan Kankal, Suvadip Neogi and Joana Portugal Pereira from the WGIII Technical Support Unit. A special thanks goes to Kenny Coventry, Harmen Gudde, Irene Lorenzoni, and Stuart Jenkins for their support with the figures in the Summary for Policymakers, as well as Nigel Hawtin for graphical support of the Report. In addition, the following contributions are gratefully acknowledged: Jatinder Padda (copy edit), Melissa Dawes (copy edit), Marilyn Anderson (index), Vincent Grégoire (layout) and Sarah le Rouzic (intern).


Why? Do you just like the look of the many names you've listed, of people you don't know at all?

The policy makers are politicians and the IPCC report to policy makers has repeatedly been criticised for saying different things to what was agreed by the scientists in the prior technical reports. It is a brochure.
 
I knew that the main drivers for sea level rise was thermal expansion of the oceans, and partly down to the ice melting, but I didn't know of a third issue (that is only a slight influence:

"Global warming is causing global mean sea level to rise in two ways. First, glaciers and ice sheets worldwide are melting and adding water to the ocean. Second, the volume of the ocean is expanding as the water warms. A third, much smaller contributor to sea level rise is a decline in the amount of liquid water on land—aquifers, lakes and reservoirs, rivers, soil moisture. This shift of liquid water from land to ocean is largely due to people depleting ground water."
 
Lol, love how it's driven you mad.

It's a film, dear. Take it or leave it. Not proof of anything, not being used to prove anything. Start a new thread if you like.
That is a lie

The purpose of the film "Climate the movie" is to disprove Climate change is caused by man.

The reason you posted it is because you believe the film and wanted others to watch it and be taken in

But it contains misinformation.

Why does a film trying to disprove Climate change is man made by using myths and misinformation ... what does that tell you
 
Womble can’t answer yes or no. He just tells lies
Yes and he is too thick to realise it was trick question.
Its killing him - his spidy scene is tingling telling him its a trap but he has not answered because he doesn't know what the trap is.
 
Last edited:
That is a lie

The purpose of the film "Climate the movie" is to disprove Climate change is caused by man.

The reason you posted it is because you believe the film and wanted others to watch it and be taken in

But it contains misinformation.

Why does a film trying to disprove Climate change is man made by using myths and misinformation ... what does that tell you

The thing is, Notch, you keep repeating yourself but not providing any substance or clear explanations for your thinking. Despite invitations to do so. You are a believer, not a thinker, and I am absolutely delighted to find that the video has wound you up. Because I don't like cosy, lazy thinking and consensus. I like honesty and competition.

Also, where I have considered research posted here to be poor, such as the consensus grifting papers, I have clearly explained why. You haven't clearly explained anything.

What is even more peculiar is that you seem to believe that you will persuade others who disagree with you by simply screaming "misinformation!" and "lies!" Why would anybody care what you consider to be misinformation or disinformation or whatever the latest fad name is for opinions we disagree with? Nobody does. You haven't changed my mind or anybody else's. You need to try harder, and better please.
 
It states there are possibly small changes in radiation levels striking the Earth, affecting modest changes over tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.

Absolutely nothing to do with the rapid climate change currently being experienced on Earth. The reason climate scientists have ignored your magic bean theory, is because they could not stop laughing long enough to read your email address.
 
The thing is, Notch, you keep repeating yourself but not providing any substance or clear explanations for your thinking.
What do you think is garbage, specifically, about the reference papers in the link I posted?
 
Good film, some interesting assertions backed up with data. I was a bit of a sceptic before watching it, probably slightly more so now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top