/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8632517
>That graph was published in the UN IPCC FAR report of 1990
...so, it's exactly like >>8629974 said:
>It's an organization that looks at the scientific evidence and publishes reports for policy makers.
it's a little unclear what point you thought you were making here.

>Their Entire Publications (AR & FAR) go through their own special peer review process!!
Okay, now you're just demonstrating your ignorance of some terms here. "peer review" and "expert review" are different things. Peer review is when a researcher in a field does some research and sends their write-up around to other researchers (their PEERS) to make sure that their research is scientifically sound and statistically rigorous. Expert review is when an organization (typically a political organization of some sort) is putting together a document that draws on research, and they send it around to actual researchers (EXPERTS on the topic) to make sure that the technical details are correct.
It's more or less the difference between having your novel critiqued and having your novel proofread. But you don't know that, and you don't really care.

>>8602224
did you just treat projections of future emissions as if they were actual records? bad denier! bad!
the other issue is that, as Hansen admitted at the time, Scenario A relied on factoring in emissions of other trace gases whose levels and trends were not well known at the time.

>>8602236
>UN is bullying countries
if the UN had the power to bully anyone, we'd be living in a different world. the UN can't even get its shit together enough to stop ethnic cleansing from happening.

>>8515538
>If carbonate reacted with only the surface of a droplet of vinegar, but appeared to have the same uniform reaction all around the droplet's surface, I would be skeptical that the small amount of acetic acid in the droplet would be responsible.
and you'd be WRONG, bub.
how big do you think molecules are, relative to a droplet?