or evening, but you could only go when you weren t working. if she does protective custody, p. p.c., she ll only get recreation twice a week, which is about one hour. what is the food like? oh. it doesn t even bear mentioning. that bad, huh? oh, absolutely. i heard casey is afforded a fund, if you will, people or family members, just people watching the trial can contribute to, so she s able to upgrade her food, chicken instead of a mash every whatever. was that available? yes, it s called can teen or commissary. you can go once a week and spend a set amount of money and perform a specific amount of items. that s what most inmates do. you have to supplement your meals through the can teen.
conclusions, they extend their window for what literature is acceptable for consideration if there s a paper they thinkpt a p and they ignore papers that don t. ig patrick michaels experienced the ipcc s bias firsthand. they initially said theyid would keep a paper of mine out even if they had to redefine what the peer review literature was. so they were bound and determine to have a point of view come through, and they succeeded. the su ippc s reputation has also come under fire for a series of errors contained ines its reports. the interesting thing abouthe those errors is they all point in the same direction toward creating a a problem where there isn t one and towards exaggerating it where there is. this is a graph used in the ippc s first and second assessment reports. it shows what scientists refer to as the medieval warm period, during which temperatures were as high or higher than they are today.as now, if true, this cast doubt on the idea that humans caused global warm
temperature studies. subsequent studies show a key step in his technique toerat generate a hockey stick even if random numbers are used. this was the case in the first seven panels of this chart. he used a mathematical technique that loaded all the weight of the final graph on these pines, and that s what really distorted the picture. in fact when the hockey stick is compared to another tree ring graph by the climatologist keith, the results converge sharply around 1960. it shows mann and jones struggling with what they should present to the public in the ippc report to account for the discrepancy. what are they going to do about the fact that keith s graph is going in the wrong direction and it detracts from the nice tidy story they want to tell. so in that case they chopped off theost post 1960 portion of briffa s graph. and they faced another problem like t that when they prepared a report for the world
the panel claims to reflect the beliefs of a so-called scientific consensus. of the notion of science by authority is kind of stupid and counter to science as it is supposed to be conducted. only the politicians want science as a sensors of authority. the ippc sells it s agenda through assessment reports. the reports push for international treatise to curbti emissions byes painting a pictun of an an environment armagedon. critics object to how the reports are compiled. the sign tests who are lead authors on the ipc areauth nominated by their government. and so therefore the governmentg say that this represents science as we see it. oncee the they survey the scientific literature and claim to reflect it in their reports. they cherry pick literature e
climate change known as the i. p. p. c., founded by the united nation necessary 1988, and how its findings have been used tohe justify some of the most extreme claims about global warming. but how did the group some so influential? the ippc conducts no scientifict research, rather it was found today row meet international climate agreements. a it was chartered to support possible future climatery so that s what they do. you can look at their inspiration, the controversyial bureaucrat, samori strong. it began in the mind of one ambitious, very rich civil servant, who was one of the factions that always opened the un could be turned into a world government.