Global Politics, International High Finance, Propaganda


Wednesday, 1 September 2010

IPCC Reports are Politics NOT Science

The IPCC reports about climate change are actually written by politicians

Before I go into detail I would like to use a simple analogy to explain what I'm going to say.
Suppose some scientists produced a report stating that 2+2 = 4 which they gave to some politicians.
Then the politicians altered the report to say that 2+2 = 5
Then the politicians released this false report to the press saying: -
"2+2=5 - that's what the scientists said, science has spoken" 
Then imagine that most people came to believe that 2+2=5 because they believed that the scientists had said so.

Well.  That's basically what has been going on with the IPCC reports.


Imagine further that the politicians put their fake science into a document together with instructions that the original science report (the one that said 2+2=4 ) be retrospectively altered so as to be consistent with the new political changes (2+2=5).

Well that is basically what the IPCC has done - and that document exists and I am calling it the "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document.

This document is a list of fake science lied into existence by POLITICIANS together with the instruction that the original science which had been made by actual SCIENTISTS should be altered.

The politicians are so confident that they not only put their fake science in writing but they also publically command that the actual science be replaced with their lies.

This is a reference to a document from the IPCC that I call the "smoking gun of 2+2=5" because it is the proof that  "Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming" (CAGW) is a HOAX constructed by politicians.

The document, which is on the website of the IPCC, is the proof of political chicanery and shennanagens and subterfuge.
The document is a list of political lies together with the instructions to substitute them for science

I am sorry to say that to properly understand the "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document will require a detailed examination of the context in which it appears. 
But if you (the reader) get lost or bored by the details then you should return to consideration of this document for this is the "smoking gun."

The smoking gun document is like a list of instructions to replace "2+2=4 " with "2+2=5."  It's proper formal name is: -

"Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report - Changes to the underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment"

On the first page of this document it says that it contains :- "Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers"

You could also liken the "2+2=5" document to the memos received by "Winston Smith" in George Orwell's "1984."

These were the memos that told him to delete the actual "facts" of the past and replace them with the new fake-facts that suited his political masters.

In "1984" it is the newspapers that were altered, but with the IPCC it is the science that is altered.

The IPCC is like a "Ministry Of Truth"
  • "He who controls the present controls the past.
  •  He who controls the past controls the future"

End of Analogy

THE CONFERENCE OF POLITICIANS that Produced the "Smoking gun of 2+2=5" Document

To properly understand my claim about alteration you need to understand a lot of context and jargon which I will go into in the appendixes of this blog article.  But for now I'll skip a bit of that documentation of the details just to get us to:- the conference of politicians that produced the 2+2=5 document.

The conference that produced the "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document is a meeting of politicians rather than scientists. The meeting is a political negotiation, not a conference of scientists

Lets examine the "2+2=5" document for WG1 of AR5 (for the meaning of this jargon - see Appendix 01 below):-

The proper, formal name for the meeting that produces the smoking gun of 2+2=5 document for WG1 of AR5 is "The 12th session of Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)" 23-26 SEPTEMBER 2013 - held in Stockholm, Sweden.

We'll start with a little bit of context to help understand the quotes:-
  • A group of scientists produce a technical report of several thousand pages.
  • Then a smaller group of scientists - chosen by some politicians in the IPCC ( not by the scientists) - produce a Summary of that technical report called "The Summary For Policymakers" ("SPM")
  • The scientists hand the SPM over to a group of politicians
  • The politicians re-write the SPM line by line in a marathon meeting which - in the case of AR5 -  lasted  four days from Monday 23 Sept 2013 to Thursday 26 September 2013. 
  • The marathon re-write meeting is immediately followed by a press conference at which the fake science  - the altered SPM - is announced to the world as if it were the real science that the scientists had actually produced
The following quotes about the meeting that alters the SPM and produces the "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document  are from Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise at link
"A big IPCC meeting takes place. Attended by governments. Although some people in the room are scientists, the vast majority are diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats, and assorted other officials .

These people then spend the next week re-writing the summary authored by scientists."
More from Donna Laframboise about WG1 of AR5  :-

On Thursday 26 September 2013 she writes link:-
"Since Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in a meeting. The purpose of that meeting is to take a document authored by scientists and ensure that its wording is palatable to the powers that be."

"Every single paragraph in that draft gets projected onto large screens and discussed. The delegation from country X wants two sentences removed. The delegation from country Y insists that a new phrase be inserted. Graphs get added; tables get subtracted. And they keep talking about that one paragraph until all of the countries present are happy with it. Then it’s taken down and the next paragraph is put up on the screen.

The bottom line is that this is a week of naked political horse trading that goes on behind closed doors. Journalists are not allowed to witness what takes place

It’s only after the diplomats have haggled over this Summary – paragraph by paragraph – that the final version gets officially released at a press conference

But the bad news doesn’t stop there. There’s actually a step in the IPCC process in which the original, lengthy report gets amended so that it conforms to the politically-negotiated Summary. I am not making this up
And here is another account of the same thing  (but for WG3 of AR5)  from: link
Robert Stavins is a professor of "Business and Government" from Harvard University and is one of the two Coordinating Lead Authors on Chapter 13 of the AR5's Working Group III report (titled "International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments").
In an April 25, 2014 blog post, titled, "Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken?", Stavins reproduced the April 17, 2014 letter he had sent (initially privately) to some big-wigs at the IPCC, expressing his problems with the procedure. Below are some key excerpts from Stavins's letter:
I am writing to you today to express my disappointment and frustration with the process and outcome of the government approval meetings in Berlin this past week, at which the assembled representatives from the world’s governments, considered and, in effect, fundamentally revised or rejected parts of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of IPCC Working Group 3 over a period of five long days (and nights). 

as the week progressed, I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political, as opposed to scientific bases.

The general motivations for government revisions – from most (but not all) participating delegations – appeared to be quite clear in the plenary sessions. These motivations were made explicit in the “contact groups,” which met behind closed doors in small groups with the lead authors on particularly challenging sections of the SPM. In these contact groups, government representatives worked to suppress text that might jeopardize their negotiating stances in international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

I fully understand that the government representatives were seeking to meet their own responsibilities toward their respective governments by upholding their countries’ interests, but in some cases this turned out to be problematic for the scientific integrity of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

nearly all delegates in the meeting demonstrated the same perspective and approach, namely that any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.  In fact, several (perhaps the majority) of the country representatives in the SPM.5.2 contact group identified themselves as negotiators in the UNFCCC negotiations.  To ask these experienced UNFCCC negotiators to approve text that critically assessed the scholarly literature on which they themselves are the interested parties, created an irreconcilable conflict of interest.  Thus, the country representatives were placed in an awkward and problematic position by the nature of the process.
from :-link to another source on the topic of Stavins

Professor Stavins defines "Summary BY Policymakers" - as distinct from "Summary FOR policymakers"

that he had been especially concerned by what happened at a special ‘contact group’.

He was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials.

He said almost all of them made clear that ‘any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable.’

Many of the officials were themselves climate negotiators, facing the task of devising a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in negotiations set to conclude next year.

Prof Stavins said: ‘This created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. It has got to the point where it would be reasonable to call the document a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them, and it certainly affects the credibility of the IPCC. The process ought to be reformed.’
Another example showing that it is POLITICIANS who alter the science (not scientists) is from IISD reporting services regarding AR5 2013 link
"On the headline statement, which states that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and, since 1950, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia, Saudi Arabia said the statement was "alarmist," urged qualifying the terms "unequivocal" and "unprecedented," requested using the year 1850 instead of 1950, and called for a reference to slowed warming over the past 15 years. 
Germany, Australia, Chile, Spain, Fiji, New Zealand, the US, Saint Lucia, Tanzania, Mexico, Slovenia, the UK and others supported the statement as presented, with Germany pointing out that AR4 concluded almost the same. Canada pointed out that factors other than warming will be the emphasis in the future. The Russian Federation proposed "changing", rather than "warming" of the climate system. After some discussion, Saudi Arabia agreed to accept the statement as presented.
What is being reported on in this direct quote from "Summary of the 12th session of Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 36th session of the IPCC." is that it is diplomatic representatives of countries who are changing the SPM, not scientists. The people involved in making the changes are representing their nation, not the "Truth". 
Politicians propose amendments and other politicians vote them into the SPM, but surely proper science is not done by the vote of non-scientists?
More from this same IISD report from Judith Curry - (Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology)

She chooses to include the following quote about which I find severable things to be notable:-
"Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: 

In drafting the keynote message, the UK suggested adding a sentence that explicitly notes increased evidence of anthropogenic influence since the AR4. This was supported, with several different wording suggestions, by Slovenia, Switzerland, Canada, Fiji, Saint Lucia and Germany, and opposed by Saudi Arabia. A contact group developed a proposal that included text suggested by the UK."  
If we examine the paragraph quoted by Professor Curry above:-
  1. The "keynote message" is what most journalists (and therefore ordinary people) mistakenly THINK was said by scientists.
  2. Whereas it was actually said by non-scientists. It was said by political representatives and diplomats - not scientists.
  3. The quote reveals that the words about "increased evidence of anthropogenic influence since the AR4" were created and added by politicians  - not by scientists
  4. There is no mention of any scientists having noticed an increase in evidence of AGW because it wasn't scientists who noticed an increase in evidence of MAN-MADE influence on climate - it was politicians.
  5. It was some diplomatic representative of the UK who proposed the new wording of the "keynote message" and it had to be ADDED to the SPM because it was not already present in the version that had been supplied by the scientists.
  6. The politicians don't cite or specify the actual evidence for their claim about "increased evidence of anthropogenic influence." They assert that it exists but they don't specify where.
  7. This assessment of evidence and its relative quantity was made by politicians - not scientists.
  8. This wording was opposed by some diplomatic representatives of Saudi Arabia - Scientists were not given the opportunity to do so.
  9. This dispute about wording was resolved by some kind of political process - some haggling, "caucus" or sub-meeting called a "contact group" - which involved exchanges of political bribes and/or threats - not facts or scientific reasoning.
  10. This dispute about wording was not resolved by a debate between scientists concerning scientific data and its interpretation - it was resolved by the haggling and voting of politicians.
  11. The politically altered SPM is not peer reviewed and yet it is going to be used to alter the Technical Report (which allegedly IS peer-reviewed)
  12. The politically altered SPM is going to be used to alter the Technical Report. The "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document is a list of these alterations. That document is not peer-reviewed either.
  13. The final Technical Report cannot properly be called "Peer Reviewed" either, not once it has been altered to include the non-peer reviewed "science" created by politicians haggling, horse-trading and wrangling.
The quote from Judith Curry given above  - once again - defines the humans involved in re-writing the SPM in terms of the nation-state that they represent. They are not described as scientists, which is correct because they are not.   What is going on is a political process, not a scientific one.  Science is being destroyed and replaced with political propaganda.

I repeat, what we have here is diplomatic representatives of nation states who are changing the SPM, not scientists.  Politicians are writing a report that they are going to pretend is a report written by scientists.

You could define "The Meeting of Politicians that Produced the "2+2=5" Document" as the meeting that changed the "Summary FOR Policymakers" into the "Summary BY Policymakers."
There is at least one politician who understands what has happened and his name is Senator James Inhofe, (R-Okla.).  He is Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

'Id like to give some quotes from him to show that he understands the "Smoking Gun of 2+2=5" report. You could say that the purpose of this (my) article is to convince the reader that every word in the quotes from Inhofe's is true.

Senator James Inhofe

Quotes from Inhoff in 2007 about the SPM:-
"This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain. The media has failed to report that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political delegates and bureaucrats,"
A quote from Inhofe about what I call the "smoking gun/2+2=5" document :-
"The UN guidelines themselves mandate that the science be altered to conform to the Summary for Policymakers which is not approved by the scientists, but by political delegates of the UN,"
Another quote from Inhofe:-
"First the 18 page Summary for Policy Makers misleads readers and even distorts the underlying scientific conclusions
Second - The scientists did not write this document
Third - The accusation that - the SPM was subsequently and materially altered."
This quote is via:-  Hinrichs, Robert J., Ph.D 2008
Here is another quote from Senator Inhofe on Wednesday Aug 6, 2003.
 "Such reporting prompted testimony by Dr. Richard Lindzen before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee I now chair, in May of 2001. Lindzen said, “Nearly all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers, which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.”"
The article that is from is so good that I recommend that the reader read it all :-
Incidentally, the IPCC actually admits that it does alter the underlying scientific conclusions.  It makes this admission on page four of  its "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work":
"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."


Dr Richard Lindzen was lead author for the IPCC'S Chapter 7 in 2001. He was clear about the way in which the IPCC used its Summary For Policymakers:
"The Summary For Policymakers misrepresents what scientists say and exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty…  The IPCC encourages misuse of the summaries and the final version was modified from the draft in a way to exaggerate man-made warming.”.
and again: - MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda."

And again Prof Lindzen says:-
"Nearly all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers, which are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored."

And Professor Bob Carter - Ottawa, Canada, September 27, 2013:
 "No one should trust the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report issued today in Stockholm," said Professor Bob Carter, Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. "The IPCC has a history of malfeasance that even includes rewording recommendations of expert science advisors to fit the alarmist agenda of participating governments."
Source - link

Professor Richard Toll of Sussex University in the UK says in Fox news:-
"The Summary for Policy Makers is drafted by academics, but approved line-by-line by government representatives. Every clause that could possibly be used against a government position, either in a domestic debate or in international negotiations, was neutered or removed."

So just to re-iterate what the "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document is....It is fake science constructed by politicians (NOT scientists) and which is going to be substituted for the actual science that was constructed by scientists (NOT politicians).

The Most Important Changes That The Politicians make

The most important alteration that the politicians make to the science is:-
Where the scientists said "Climate Change is probably Natural" the politicians changed that to "Climate Change is probably man-made"

It is diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats, and assorted other officials that change "Climate change is Natural" into "Climate Change is man-made

Where the scientists said "It cannot be proven that Climate Change is probably man-made" the politicians changed that to "It has been proven that Climate Change is man-made

It is politicians that decide that "a tiny bit of CORRELATION is proof of CAUSATION"

It is politicians that decide that un-validated mathematical models of a tiny bit of earths history (about 50 years) are proof that humans cause Climate Change but nature doesn't.

It is politicians who decide that the frail and flimsy bit of evidence for Man Made Global Warming is :-
  1/ Satisfactory Proof of Man Made Global Warming and
  2/ Satisfactory Dis-proof of Global Warming being natural


The day after the "Conference of politicians that produced the "Smoking Gun of 2+2=5" document is a huge press conference that is - in my opinion - the most influential part of the fraud.

First of all it puts time-pressure on the political meeting that preceeds it. The politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats at that political meeting are all under pressure to produce a document to be released at the press conference, which means that it HAS to be completed before the press conference. That may be why the political wrangling and haggling goes on all night as well as all day.

The document that is released to the press with great fanfare does not mention that it has been extensively altered by politicians.  No  - the press are told that "this is the voice of science" and "thousands of scientists have spoken."

The politicians pretend that it was what the scientists had said.

They don't mention that - "we politicians made this up over the last few days and we are now pretending that it is what the scientists said."

They don't mention that they are going to alter what the scientists had actually said (The "Technical Report") to match the political propaganda that they have just lied into existence.

They don't tell the journalists about the "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document and they don't invite them to comment on it.

What is NOT released at the Press Conference

The politicians deliberately DO NOT release the original Technical Report at the Press Conference because that report has yet to be altered to be consistent with the fake science that has just been lied into existence by politicians. If the politicians did release the original Technical Report at the same time as the altered SPM (the Summary BY Policymakers) then journalists would be able to see that the SPM is full of political lies.  The SPM not only makes claims that are not in the Technical Report of which it is supposed to be a summary but actually contains claims that were contradicted by the original Technical Report

It is probably constant repetition by the media that has persuaded YOU that the catastrophic effects of AGW are "proven" and that the only way to stop them is a gigantic, world wide program of de-industrialisation.  It certainly wasn't the "scientific evidence".

I think that the IPCC is a political device for stealing the credibility of science and attaching it to political lies.

Because of the IPCC science is now "Lies Told By Politicians."

More exactly:- IPCC science IS lies told by politicians.

IPCC "science" is lies told by politicians who are pretending that they are scientists

Science is now political lies that are propagandised into reality by repetition in the Media

The "worlds best scientists" are now politicians and bureaucrats


None of the politicians who created the report are named or mentioned in the report

The "Summary BY Policymakers" - written and published by the politicians in the IPCC - starts with a deliberate lie.

The first page of the report does list the names of several scientists but it doesn't name any of the diplomats or bureaucrats who actually wrote it even though it was these non-scientists who wrote all the important parts of the final report.

THE SPM REPORT AFTER IT HAS BEEN ADULTERATED   see sections entitled :- "Drafting Authors" and "Draft Contributing Authors."  None of the people named there are non-scientists. None of the people named there are the diplomats and bureaucrats who actually wrote the final, published version of the Summary FOR Policymakers that should actually be called the Summary BY Policymakers.

The politicians make a clear attempt to mislead the public about who wrote this SPM, by leaving their names off that report.

The report starts with a list of authors that doesn't include the many diplomats, politicians and bureaucrats that invented the most important bits of the "science" in that report.

An attempt is made to mislead the reader into believing that the scientists in the list were the authors of the report that immediately follows that list of their names.

Actually many of the scientists wrote "science" that was later deliberately DELETED by the politicians.

The first people to deny "the science of climate change" are the politicians who delete that science from the Technical reports.

The politicians dishonestly pretend that that they didn't write any of the final report by leaving their names off it.

What are the names of the actual authors of the Summary BY Policymakers? You know - those non-scientist diplomats and bureaucrats who wrote the most quoted and most politically influential parts of the Assessment Report.

Why are the authors of the most important words of the 21st century (so far) so shy??  Obviously it is because:-
  1. They want us to think that they are scientists
  2. They don't want us to know that they were NOT scientists.


The politicians pretend that what they publish is what the scientists said, but they are deliberately lying.

The published report:-
  1. Doesn't contain much of what the scientists did say and it
  2. Does contain lots that they didn't say.
What the politicians publish contains facts invented by politicians - It contains deliberate political lies.

It isn't just an accident that the politicians who wrote the report don't mention their names.
It isn't just an accident that they don't claim credit for the facts that they lied into existence.


Reports from the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

The IPCC was built by politicians and is run by politicians for a political purpose.
Every 5 or so years it produces a report called an assessment report (AR). There have been 5 so far.
AR1 was in  1990
AR2 was in  1995     
AR3 was in  2001   
AR4 was in  2007  
AR5 was in  2013
Each report is made up of several sub-reports produced by "Working Groups" (WGs)
WG1 - reports on he CAUSES of climate change
WG2- reports on the EFFECTS of climate change and how to ADAPT to these effects
WG3- reports on MITIGATION of climate change - how to STOP the climate from changing in the first place by reducing the emission of man-made carbon dioxide.
For each of these "Technical" reports from the Working Groups there is also a "Summary For Policymakers" report. 

And there is also a final "Synthesis Report" report. Allegedly a synthesis of the reports from WG1, WG2 and WG3.
So, most people think that each Assessment Report (AR) report is made up of 7 sub-reports:-
* 3 Technical reports - One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 3 Summaries For Policymakers - One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 1 Synthesis Report
But there actually 13 reports involved in each AR.
* 3 Technical reports - One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 3 Summaries FOR Policymakers - One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 3 Summaries BY Policymakers - Summaries that have been "Orwellianised" BY politicians to be Summaries with fake science in them.
* 3 "Orwellianised" Technical Reports - Politically altered versions of the Technical Reports retrospectively altered to match the Summary BY policymakers.
* 1 Synthesis Report


1/ The SPM that was created by those few scientists that were picked by the politicians is NOT peer-reviewed.  This (non-peer reviewed) SPM is then handed over to some more politicians so that they can alter it.

2/ The SPM that the politicians re-wrote line by line is NOT peer-reviewed. The politicians may have started with the (non-peer reviewed) SPM written by a few chosen scientists but they changed it by adding science lied into existance by politicians. The final SPM is created by the votes of non-scientists.

3/ The "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document is NOT peer-reviewed. This is the document specifying the alterations to be made to the original Technical Report - the report that was at least kind-of peer reviewed.

4/The final Technical Report is NOT peer-reviewed. The report that only gets published after it has been altered to be consistent with the fake science created by the politicians now contains the "science" that has been lied into existence by politicians.


1/ The original Technical Report is not "consensus science" -  the authors each wrote a small part of it and are not ask to sign-off on the whole thing.  They are not asked to consense on the whole Technical Report 

2/ The SPM that was created by those few scientists that were picked by the politicians is NOT "consensus science."   The authors are not asked to consense on the whole SPM.

3/ The SPM that the politicians re-wrote line by line is NOT "consensus science" The science lied into existence by politicians is not consensus science - it is the consensus of politicians, non-scientists.

4/ The "smoking gun of 2+2=5" document is NOT "consensus science."

5/The final Technical Report that is published by the politicians is NOT "consensus science."  The IPCC scientists are not invited to consense on the final published report in the same way that were not invited to consense on the original technical report.

The Technical Report that is published by the IPCC is NOT the one that was written by the scientists.  The scientists only wrote  the "draft" report - the "final" report was written by the politicians.
None of the politicians who altered the reports are named or mentioned.


The original Technical Report was done by the scientists before:-
  1. The Summary FOR policymakers, which itself was done before
  2. The Summary BY policymakers, which itself was done before
  3. The Press Conference of Fraud, which itself was done before
  4. The "Smoking gun of 2+2=5" document, which itself was done before
  5. The original Technical Report was modified to be consistent with the Summary BY Policymakers, which itself was done before
  6. The altered "Technical Report" was published with all its obvious attempts to mislead


  • The original Technical Report that was constructed by the scientists.
  • The Summary FOR Policymakers
To put that another way - the only reports that are made available to the public are those that have been altered by politicians for political purposes and which include political lies.

We cannot know what the scientists in the IPCC said because their original report is not available to us.
We can only know what the lying politicians in the IPCC pretended that the scientists said, because that is what is in the final published report.


Journalists don't distinguish between the "Summary FOR Policymakers" and the "Summary BY Policymakers"
We cannot check journalists quotes against the "Summary FOR Policymakers" because that summary is never published.

It is journalists who turn the (actually quite modest) IPCC reports into panic-inducing hysteria about cataclysmic apocalypses of catastrophe



IPCC science is:- Lies made-up by politicians who pretend that it is science

There are 3 more examples of IPCC science - the most important of which is the IPCC for Biodiversity


There’s the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – aka the IPBES which is, in the words of the Guardian newspaper, an “IPCC for nature.”

The IPBES is linked to yet another UN treaty called the "Convention on Biological Diversity".

It's current vice chair is Professor Bob Watson, who is
1/Ex chair of the IPCC and
2/Chief scientist at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

"The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is an expert institution expected to transform the governance of biodiversity and ecosystem services"  

Wikipedia on IPBES

NOTE:- The  IPBES is relevant to Brighton because Brighton is now a UN BIOSPHERE - a place where the "Convention on Biological Diversity" is going to be implemented without telling the locals


Between 2003 and 2008, the UN sponsored the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAAST). Described as an “IPCC for agriculture,” this effort was led by Professor Bob Watson – who had just wrapped up five years as IPCC chairman. In that instance, 400 scientists wrote the UN a big report.


In 2011, Nature reported that the UN wanted to establish an IPCC-like body on soil degradation. The article was entirely candid about the fact that such a body would assist a treaty known as the United Nations "Convention to Combat Desertification."

[Back to the Main Index for more articles on Global Warming]

For Example try the article:- Sustainable Happiness is no laughing matter


"The Climate Con"

is the set-up for

"The Sustainability Scam"

Sustainability is a weapon of mass destruction not just a weapon of mass deception

No comments:

Post a Comment