Yeah, right I'll read right through six multi thousand page documents and get right back to you. Spend some time on WUWT:
I believe I’ve explained the weakness of the IPCC model to you before. But you probably didn’t acknowledge your previously held assumptions about the IPCC. Let alone question those assumptions or test them. The IPCC is a great resource—as long as one understands the limitations of the process they use to create reports. The IPCC does not do systematic review as some climate activist types on PF have claimed in the past. The IPCC reports are literature reviews. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-023-00072-3#:~:text=IPCC assessments are based on,review processes have been developed. The difference? Glad you asked. Quite a bit of difference! https://libanswers.liverpool.ac.uk/faq/260223#:~:text=Literature reviews don't usually,a new piece of research. That’s why I often refer to the IPCC as a curator of information to form a narrative. Because that’s exactly what they do. To be clear, that’s not necessarily a criticism of the IPCC. It’s just the facts. They do not do systematic reviews. They engage in curation of information to form a narrative—they do literature review. But the main takeaway is that the IPCC reports are not comprehensive unbiased assessments of climate science. They are not intended to be. Anyone who has read them should pick up on this. The studies used as references are for the most part one or two in number and do not usually include any existing studies that come to different conclusions or use better methodology. If one wants a complete set of information on climate science, exclusive consumption of the IPCC reports will not get you there. Of course they have value. I routinely quote from the reports. But appealing to the authority of a group of scientists (mostly nominated by governments and organizations with agendas) doing literature review doesn’t equate to critical thought.
Many of WUWT's articles feature papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Those are always linked so readers can review them for themselves.
yes, that had an effect on gas prices - which in this case was effected by artificially reducing supply of oil
That not the whole story. Commodities markets are certainly sensitive to supply and demand. But, they are also sensitive to detection of risk to supply or predicted possibility of changes in demand. It's not uncommon to see response to risk that doesn't materialize - risk related to political unrest (such as Ukraine, Russia), etc. can cause markets to make defensive corrections.
The alarmists simply ignore research results that refute their narrative. The Greening Earth vs Enemies of Climate Truth Jim Steele Earth benefits from increasing greening that reverberates through entire ecosystems! Rising CO2 and its fertilization effects makes ecosystems more robust and more resilient. Greening debunks claims by enemies of climate…
