The IPCC reports about climate change are actually written by politicians.
SIMPLE ANALOGY
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.
EXTENDED ANALOGY
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's basically what has been going on with the IPCC reports.
EXTENDED ANALOGY
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.
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.
This document, which is on the website of the IPCC, is the proof of political chicanery and shennanagens and subterfuge.
This document, which is on the website of the IPCC, is the proof of political chicanery and shennanagens and subterfuge.
This 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.
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: -
IPCC-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"
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"
|
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 02 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
Another example showing that it is POLITICIANS who alter the science (not scientists) is from IISD reporting services regarding AR5 2013 link
More from this same IISD report quoted by 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:-
Professor Stavins defines "Summary BY Policymakers" - as distinct from "Summary FOR policymakers"
On 26 April 2014 Prof Stavins told "The Mail"
Another quote from Professor Stavinsthat 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.’
Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeasedComment :- politicians "deleting almost 75% of the text" is political censorship. They are not deleting the text because it is false, they are deleting it because it is true. They are deleting it because it is an Inconvenient Truth..
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 the 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!
She chooses to include the following quote about which I find severable things to be notable:-
"Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/negotiating-the-ipcc-spm/.
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:-
- The "keynote message" is what most journalists (and therefore most ordinary people) think is the most important part of the report. The most quoted and the most politically influential part of the report. They think that it was said by scientists.
- Whereas it was actually said by non-scientists. It was said by political representatives and diplomats - not scientists.
- The quote reveals that the words about "increased evidence of anthropogenic influence since the AR4" were created and added by politicians - not by scientists
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 or what it is.
- This assessment of evidence and its relative increase in quantity was made by politicians - not by scientists.
- This wording was opposed by some diplomatic representatives of Saudi Arabia - Scientists were not given the opportunity to do so.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
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."
Senator Inhofe
I'd like to give some quotes from him to show that he understands what is going on.
Senator James Inhofe
"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 of 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 documentThird - 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 this quote is from is so good that I recommend that the reader read it all :-
<Start of Extra comments by Inhofe:->
As Environment and Public Works chairman, Inhofe gave a two-hour Senate floor speech on July 28, 2003. [Quoted from Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 113 (Monday, July 28, 2003)]
He said he was "going to expose the most powerful, most highly financed lobby in Washington, the far left environmental extremists", and laid out in detail his opposition to attribution of recent climate change to humans, using the word "hoax" four times, including the statement that he had "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax" and his conclusion that "manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".
In the same speech he said about the Summary For Policymakers:-
<Start of quote 1>
"Many of the misconceptions about climate change originated from the IPCC's six-page executive summary. It was the most widely read and quoted of the three documents published by the IPCC working group but--and this point is crucial--it had the least input from scientists and the greatest input from nonscientists." <End of quote 1>
<start of quote 2>
"Let me go to the third assessment. Five years later, the IPCC was back again, this time with the Third Assessment Report on Climate Change. In October of 2000, the IPCC "Summary for Policymakers''-- that is not what the scientists said; that is what the politicians said --was leaked to the media which, once again, accepted the IPCC's conclusions as fact.
Based on the summary, the Washington Post wrote on October 30: "The consensus on global warming keeps strengthening."
In a similar vein, the New York Times competently declared on October 28: "The international panel of climate scientists, considered the most authoritative voice on global warming, is now concluding that mankind's contribution to the problem is greater than originally believed." <End of quote 2>
<Start of quote 3>
That is what Dr. Lindzen, who is one of the contributing scientists to the IPCC, has said. As it turned out, the policymakers' summary was politicized and radically different from the earlier draft. For example, the draft concluded the following concerning the driving case for climate change:
From the body of the evidence since IPCC (1996), we conclude there has been a discernible human influence on global climate. Studies are beginning to separate the contributions to observed climate change attributable to individual external influences, both anthropogenic and natural. This work suggests that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a substantial contributor to the observed warming, especially over the past 30 years.
Keep in mind their conclusion:
"However, the accuracy of these estimates continues to be limited by uncertainties in estimates of internal variability, natural and anthropogenic forcing, and the climate response to external forces."
In other words, they go all the way through the IPCC, the document on which all the extremists are basing their conclusions that anthropogenic actually contributes to global warming. Yet then they have a disclaimer at the very end.On January 4, 2005 Inhofe opened a speech to the Senate with the statement:
The final version looks quite different and concluded instead:
"In light of new evidence taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations."
Keep in mind "warming over the last 50 years.'' Remember we showed you those charts going back 25 years. These same people were yelling and screaming and complaining that there is a cooling period coming. They had all these fearful statements made about what is going to happen. Now they are saying over the past 50 years, when they themselves said 25 years ago that the concern was cooling.
This kind of distortion was not unintentional, as Dr. Lindzen explained for the Environment and Public Works Committee. Dr. Lindzen said: I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their "green'' credentials in defense of their statements.
This is testimony before our committee. This is from Dr. Lindzen, one of the contributors to the IPCC on which they base this premise.
In short, some parts of the IPCC process resemble a Soviet-style trial in which the facts are predetermined and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific examinations. The predictions in this summary went far beyond those in the IPCC's 1995 report.
<end of quote 3>
As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, “much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.” I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations.<End of extra comments by Inhofe>
Inhofe has also published a book :- "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future" (2012)
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."
OTHER QUOTES ABOUT THE MEETING
Dr Richard Lindzen (formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences) 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:
and again: - Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report."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.”.
"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 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, resigned fom the IPCC and said on 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."The first people to deny "the science of climate change" are the politicians who delete that science from the Technical reports.
Richard Tol was coordinating lead author in AR5 of Working Group II on Chapter 10. He was also in Working Group 2 of AR4. Listed as both a reviewer and a contributor to Working Group III of the AR2 Chapter 2 and also Chapter 6. Richard Tol was also a reviewer of the Synthesis report of AR4. He gives here an explanation of why he resigned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------See also:-
"What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment."David E. Wojick, Ph.D. -
Dr. David E. Wojick has a Ph.D. in mathematical logic and philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh, and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. He was also an IPCC expert reviewer
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 PRESS CONFERENCE OF FRAUD
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 week-long political meeting that preceeded it. The politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats at that political meeting were all under pressure to produce a document to be released at the press conference, which means that it HAD to be completed before the press conference. That may be why the political wrangling and haggling went 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 the press release is 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 the 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
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
THE SUMMARY BY POLICYMAKERS is AN ORWELLIAN LIE
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 as authors 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.
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 expensive science of the 21st century (so far) so shy?? Obviously it is because:-
- They want us to think that they are scientists
- They don't want us to know that they are NOT scientists.
ITS WORTH SAYING THIS AGAIN
The politicians pretend that what they publish is what the scientists said, but they are deliberately lying.The published report:-
- Doesn't contain much of what the scientists did say and it
- Does contain lots that they didn't say.
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.
The people who decided that the flimsy case for AGW was stronger than the substantial case for natural climate change were politicians, not scientists.
The people who decided to accept un-validated models as proof were POLITICIANS not scientists
APPENDIX 01
This is about how politicians re-write what the scientists said and then pretend that they didn't.
It is specifically about Assessment Report 2 published in 1996 and the serious discussion of it in the Wall Street Journal and "Nature" magasine.
This report is most famous for claimed to find for the first time that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate"
The 09 Oct 1995 draft of AR2
First we'll start with the draft of AR2 WG1 distributed by the IPCC dated 09 October 1999
Next - we'll examine the Meeting in Madrid (Spain) from November 27-29th, 1995.
"The Madrid Working Group 1 Plenary (27-29 Nov) convened primarily to give line-by-line approval to the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM) and to accept the underlying Report."
* "Plenary" means that it isn't just academics and scientists, it is mostly diplomats and bureacrats
* "Approval" means that the non-scientists can alter it. Diplomats and bureacrats can not only delete what they don't like but they can also add whatever they do like. "Approval" also means that the text has to be gone through line-by-line.
* "Acceptance" means "accepted as comprehensive, objective, and balanced" by non-scientists (diplomats and bureacrats) rather than scientists. "Acceptance" is the same as "approval" except that it does not specifically require going through the text line by line.
* "Consensus" means by majority vote. It means that when a vote is taken, more people vote yes than no. At IPCC meetings "consensus" means a vote by non-scientists. Scientists are never given the opportunity to vote. For the IPCC the only people required to "consense" are the non-scientist diplomats and bureaucrats.
I have added a commentary to the following quotes, the commentaries are indicated by chevron brackets << ...... >>
* The Madrid conference is supposed to last 3 days - 27 and 28 and 29 of November 1995.
* The text that they are supposed to be there to "Accept" is a draft report published 09 October 1995.
* The text that they are supposed to "Approve" is the "Summary for Policymakers" a draft of which was also published 09 October 1995.
The First Day - Monday Nov 27 1995
"In the first day of the Madrid session of Working Group 1 in November 1995 , Santer again gave an extended presentation of his new findings, this time to mostly non-expert delegates << a scientist presents material to diplomats and bureacrats who are not scientists >>. When he finished, he explained that because of what he had found, the chapter << chapter 8 of the main report, not chapter 8 of the SPM>> was out of date and needed changing. After some debate John Houghton called for an ad-hoc side group to come to agreement on the detection issue in the light of these important new findings and to redraft the detection passage of the Summary for Policymakers so that it could be brought back to the full meeting << of mostly non-scientists>> for agreement << by majority vote of non-scientists >>.
"While this course of action met with general approval, it was vigorously opposed by a few delegations, especially when it became clear that Chapter 8 would require changing, and resistance to the changes went on to dominate the three-day meeting."
The above quote is from:- https://co2coalition.org/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/
<<Comment - Instead of faciltating the acceptance and approval of the material previously published in the draft of 09 October 1995, the IPCC management have chosen to introduce NEW material that wasn't in the 09 October 1995 draft. In fact this material is so new that it hasn't even been published yet. This new material has also NOT been assessed by the IPCC "expert reviewers." who had reviewed what was in the 09Oct95 draft..>>
The second day - Tuesday Nov 28 1995
I can find no material about this specific day at all.!
The final day - Wednesday Nov 29 1995
-------------------------------------
The Final day (taken from:- https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/madrid-1995-the-last-day-of-climate-science-part-ii/)
It is now evening on the final day. The scheduled meeting close time of 6pm had slipped by with progress in the approval process nothing short of pitiful. Much of the Executive Summary remains to be approved before discussion can begin on the main body of the Summary for PolicyMakers.
Moreover, the underlying Report itself still has to be ‘accepted’ by the conference before the night is out.
Meanwhile, as this fight over the D&A <<Detection and Attribution >> section drags on and on, delegates are already starting to leave so they can make their flights home. << The meeting was supposed to end at 6pm, but it is now later than that. Some delegates are leaving, so the claims of "consensus" and quorum are getting less and less valid >>
This invites calls to close the conference: ‘at various stages the Saudis went close to forcing the abandonment of the meeting for lack of a quorum.’
<< go here to see Trenberth say that no quorum is required. >>
With the combined IPCC meeting in Rome << The agenda for the Rome meeting is:- the "Appoval" of the Synthesis report and the "acceptance" of the three main reports from W|orking Groups 1,2 and 3) >> less than two weeks away, there is no realistic prospect of re-convening the Working Group 1 Plenary.
The fight for positive attribution is pushing the conference to the brink of complete failure with approval of a Summary for PolicyMakers in any form starting to slip beyond reach. But still the all-important attribution bottom line has not yet made it over the line.
Here, the Australian Delegation Report sets the scene:
Most delegations supported the adoption of the proposed text with several (especially the US, UK and Canada) arguing for stronger language. Dr [Robert] Watson wanted a statement to the effect that the “preponderance” or “weight” (rather than “balance”) of evidence “indicated” (rather than “suggested” or “pointed to”) a human influence on global climate. Dr Stone from Canada felt the evidence was “stunning”.
Another smaller group of delegations lead by Saudi Arabia (with informal support from US industry NGO’s) sought to weaken the statement and increase the emphasis on the uncertainties involved in attributing the observed changes to human activities. << note that nobody has used the word "prove". Nobody at all is claiming that the evidence proves that humans cause global warming. >>
Eventually agreement is reached on the following wording:
(Nevertheless) the balance of evidence (now) suggests an appreciable human influence on global climate.
With a weak attribution statement << notice, NOT a statement of proof>> at last in the bag, the conference can move on to the next section of the Executive Summary.
However, the situation remains precarious, for even after achieving this prize, it could still be lost with the failure to complete the review and approve the whole Summary. With the clock passing 9pm << three hours after the conference was supposed to have ended >> and the numbers dwindling, << less and less of a quorum or a consensus >> most of the Summary for PolicyMakers remains untouched. Pausing to discuss how to proceed, the situation seems hopeless, until there is a breakthrough.
It is decided to take the Executive Summary for the Summary for PolicyMakers << as if it were the entire SPM >> and to recast the rest of this Summary as a ‘Technical Summary.’ Now as the ‘Technical Summary’ the main body of the Summary for PolicyMakers would only need ‘acceptance’ by the Plenary (as with the chapters) and not the line-by-line ‘approval’ for which there is now no time.
This strategy is accepted and the conference proceeded with approval of the rest of the Executive Summary, now at a pace and with little or no discussion.
But…Oh, No! The question of attribution had dominated the entire conference and well into extra time, yet it still would not go away. There are rumblings across the floor as a new crisis emerges. In fact, the ‘bottom line’ attribution claim is not in the bag.
Dissatisfaction with the outcome had arisen on both sides of the debate. The Australian Report continues:
Unfortunately in achieving a consensus, the Chairman did not read out the bracketed words (which he had taken as “given” from the earlier text) and a number of delegations soon made clear that the text the Chairman said had been approved was not what they thought they had agreed to. Dissatisfaction also began to mount over the term “appreciable” which had been proposed by one of the Lead Authors (Trenberth) and strongly supported by the US delegation.
Apparently the bulls were not happy with the inclusion of the bracketed words, and, for the bears, ‘appreciable’ was too strong. << is "suggesting an appreciable influence the same as providing a proof?? >> Bert Bolin had been moving around the room consulting with various delegations in an attempt to find a resolution. Finally, at 10.30pm he interrupts proceedings, ‘took over the meeting’ and declares that…
…he had decided, as an extraordinary measure, to overrule the agreed text because of the extreme importance of the wording to the way the IPCC findings would be interpreted. He said he did not wish there to be any discussion but he believed the meeting would accept, as the ‘bottom line’ on detection and attribution:
‘Nevertheless the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.’ << is "suggesting a discernible influence the same as proving a cause?? >>
No one dissented from this ruling and so this is how this famous line came into being.
<< Actually there is evidence that two countries DID disagree:-
"The meeting agreed that a footnote should be added to the final text explaining that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait dissented from the majority view. This footnote was later withdrawn at the countries' own request."
from https://www.nature.com/articles/455737a?draft=collection>>
For Zillman << an Australian delegate >> this is more than another admission of the failure to reach accord. He is surprised and taken aback by the decisive way Bolin resolves a matter of no small import to the whole assessment process.
When the attribution bottom line is shoved back in the bag it is fast approaching midnight, and while the interpreting team and hall management staff could keep the conference going until then, the building would need to be vacated soon after.
It is now a real scramble for the finish.
The Executive Summary approval is hurriedly wrapped up during the final hour while delegations pack up and leave. << more delegations leave - so even less of a "consensus" or a quorum >>
Past midnight, with minutes to go, the only thing left to do is to ‘accept’ the underlying chapters.
<< so....no pressure then!. This isn't consensus by attrition and exhaustion, is it??>>
This would not have been of much concern if it weren’t for the (now even more glaring) inconsistencies between (the body and conclusion) of Chapter 8 << the draft dated 09 Oct 1995 whose primary conclusion is that we can NOT detect the effect of human CO2 on Climate>> and (the newly drafted) D&A section of the Summary. <<ie the summary BY policymakers which says that we CAN just barely detect a slight hint of the effect of human CO2 on Climate>>
The story goes that this Working Group 1 Plenary did indeed give consent for the Lead Author to revise Chapter 8 according to the consensus it had finally achieved. For example, here is Houghton again in a ‘Justification of Chapter 8’:
The plenary meeting finally ‘accepted’ the draft chapters (including Chapter 8) subject to their revision by the lead authors to take into account the guidance provided by the meeting and in particular the need for overall consistency. [Nature 382, 22Aug96].
How explicit was this acceptance and how specific was this guidance is hard to establish. The matter would not be raised at Rome (where only the 9Oct95 draft appeared) and precious little has been obtained recording or discussing the problem before we come to the justifications proffered months later when the controversy broke. But anyway, perhaps it doesn’t matter what was actually said or not said, agreed or not; for, by all accounts, at this stage the meeting had degenerated into a shambles.
<< So, the vaunted "consensus" is one of politicians not scientists. It is not even a consensus of national delegates, because in the end it is imposed by an un-elected official of a government called The United Nations. That official was named Bert Bolin.
I interpret this as consensus by attrition, exhaustion and finally tyranny . The meeting has gone on six hours past its scheduled end time at 6pm. Most of the delegates have left. The ones that are left do not have the strength to oppose Bert Bolin from usurping the political power of the meeting and tyrannically imposing, by dictat and by fiat, the most important sentence in the report.
He is ultimately responsible for authorising the report's most famous sentence :-
"the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" >>
THE CONTROVERSY BREAKS
The full report is not published until May 1996, within a few days a controversy becomes very public
It is specifically about Assessment Report 2 published in 1996 and the serious discussion of it in the Wall Street Journal and "Nature" magasine.
This report is most famous for claimed to find for the first time that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate"
The 09 Oct 1995 draft of AR2
First we'll start with the draft of AR2 WG1 distributed by the IPCC dated 09 October 1999
At the beginning of October 1995, a draft of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), together with all eleven chapters of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, was circulated to governmental and non-governmental participants of an IPCC meeting that was to be held in Madrid from November 27-29th, 1995.Quote is from:- http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Energy_Daily_Reply.pdf Santers reply to "Energy Daily"
Next - we'll examine the Meeting in Madrid (Spain) from November 27-29th, 1995.
"The Madrid Working Group 1 Plenary (27-29 Nov) convened primarily to give line-by-line approval to the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM) and to accept the underlying Report."
* "Plenary" means that it isn't just academics and scientists, it is mostly diplomats and bureacrats
* "Approval" means that the non-scientists can alter it. Diplomats and bureacrats can not only delete what they don't like but they can also add whatever they do like. "Approval" also means that the text has to be gone through line-by-line.
* "Acceptance" means "accepted as comprehensive, objective, and balanced" by non-scientists (diplomats and bureacrats) rather than scientists. "Acceptance" is the same as "approval" except that it does not specifically require going through the text line by line.
* "Consensus" means by majority vote. It means that when a vote is taken, more people vote yes than no. At IPCC meetings "consensus" means a vote by non-scientists. Scientists are never given the opportunity to vote. For the IPCC the only people required to "consense" are the non-scientist diplomats and bureaucrats.
I have added a commentary to the following quotes, the commentaries are indicated by chevron brackets << ...... >>
* The Madrid conference is supposed to last 3 days - 27 and 28 and 29 of November 1995.
* The text that they are supposed to be there to "Accept" is a draft report published 09 October 1995.
* The text that they are supposed to "Approve" is the "Summary for Policymakers" a draft of which was also published 09 October 1995.
The First Day - Monday Nov 27 1995
"In the first day of the Madrid session of Working Group 1 in November 1995 , Santer again gave an extended presentation of his new findings, this time to mostly non-expert delegates << a scientist presents material to diplomats and bureacrats who are not scientists >>. When he finished, he explained that because of what he had found, the chapter << chapter 8 of the main report, not chapter 8 of the SPM>> was out of date and needed changing. After some debate John Houghton called for an ad-hoc side group to come to agreement on the detection issue in the light of these important new findings and to redraft the detection passage of the Summary for Policymakers so that it could be brought back to the full meeting << of mostly non-scientists>> for agreement << by majority vote of non-scientists >>.
"While this course of action met with general approval, it was vigorously opposed by a few delegations, especially when it became clear that Chapter 8 would require changing, and resistance to the changes went on to dominate the three-day meeting."
The above quote is from:- https://co2coalition.org/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/
<<Comment - Instead of faciltating the acceptance and approval of the material previously published in the draft of 09 October 1995, the IPCC management have chosen to introduce NEW material that wasn't in the 09 October 1995 draft. In fact this material is so new that it hasn't even been published yet. This new material has also NOT been assessed by the IPCC "expert reviewers." who had reviewed what was in the 09Oct95 draft..>>
The second day - Tuesday Nov 28 1995
I can find no material about this specific day at all.!
The final day - Wednesday Nov 29 1995
-------------------------------------
The Final day (taken from:- https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/madrid-1995-the-last-day-of-climate-science-part-ii/)
It is now evening on the final day. The scheduled meeting close time of 6pm had slipped by with progress in the approval process nothing short of pitiful. Much of the Executive Summary remains to be approved before discussion can begin on the main body of the Summary for PolicyMakers.
Moreover, the underlying Report itself still has to be ‘accepted’ by the conference before the night is out.
Meanwhile, as this fight over the D&A <<Detection and Attribution >> section drags on and on, delegates are already starting to leave so they can make their flights home. << The meeting was supposed to end at 6pm, but it is now later than that. Some delegates are leaving, so the claims of "consensus" and quorum are getting less and less valid >>
This invites calls to close the conference: ‘at various stages the Saudis went close to forcing the abandonment of the meeting for lack of a quorum.’
<< go here to see Trenberth say that no quorum is required. >>
With the combined IPCC meeting in Rome << The agenda for the Rome meeting is:- the "Appoval" of the Synthesis report and the "acceptance" of the three main reports from W|orking Groups 1,2 and 3) >> less than two weeks away, there is no realistic prospect of re-convening the Working Group 1 Plenary.
The fight for positive attribution is pushing the conference to the brink of complete failure with approval of a Summary for PolicyMakers in any form starting to slip beyond reach. But still the all-important attribution bottom line has not yet made it over the line.
Here, the Australian Delegation Report sets the scene:
Most delegations supported the adoption of the proposed text with several (especially the US, UK and Canada) arguing for stronger language. Dr [Robert] Watson wanted a statement to the effect that the “preponderance” or “weight” (rather than “balance”) of evidence “indicated” (rather than “suggested” or “pointed to”) a human influence on global climate. Dr Stone from Canada felt the evidence was “stunning”.
Another smaller group of delegations lead by Saudi Arabia (with informal support from US industry NGO’s) sought to weaken the statement and increase the emphasis on the uncertainties involved in attributing the observed changes to human activities. << note that nobody has used the word "prove". Nobody at all is claiming that the evidence proves that humans cause global warming. >>
Eventually agreement is reached on the following wording:
(Nevertheless) the balance of evidence (now) suggests an appreciable human influence on global climate.
With a weak attribution statement << notice, NOT a statement of proof>> at last in the bag, the conference can move on to the next section of the Executive Summary.
However, the situation remains precarious, for even after achieving this prize, it could still be lost with the failure to complete the review and approve the whole Summary. With the clock passing 9pm << three hours after the conference was supposed to have ended >> and the numbers dwindling, << less and less of a quorum or a consensus >> most of the Summary for PolicyMakers remains untouched. Pausing to discuss how to proceed, the situation seems hopeless, until there is a breakthrough.
It is decided to take the Executive Summary for the Summary for PolicyMakers << as if it were the entire SPM >> and to recast the rest of this Summary as a ‘Technical Summary.’ Now as the ‘Technical Summary’ the main body of the Summary for PolicyMakers would only need ‘acceptance’ by the Plenary (as with the chapters) and not the line-by-line ‘approval’ for which there is now no time.
This strategy is accepted and the conference proceeded with approval of the rest of the Executive Summary, now at a pace and with little or no discussion.
But…Oh, No! The question of attribution had dominated the entire conference and well into extra time, yet it still would not go away. There are rumblings across the floor as a new crisis emerges. In fact, the ‘bottom line’ attribution claim is not in the bag.
Dissatisfaction with the outcome had arisen on both sides of the debate. The Australian Report continues:
Unfortunately in achieving a consensus, the Chairman did not read out the bracketed words (which he had taken as “given” from the earlier text) and a number of delegations soon made clear that the text the Chairman said had been approved was not what they thought they had agreed to. Dissatisfaction also began to mount over the term “appreciable” which had been proposed by one of the Lead Authors (Trenberth) and strongly supported by the US delegation.
Apparently the bulls were not happy with the inclusion of the bracketed words, and, for the bears, ‘appreciable’ was too strong. << is "suggesting an appreciable influence the same as providing a proof?? >> Bert Bolin had been moving around the room consulting with various delegations in an attempt to find a resolution. Finally, at 10.30pm he interrupts proceedings, ‘took over the meeting’ and declares that…
…he had decided, as an extraordinary measure, to overrule the agreed text because of the extreme importance of the wording to the way the IPCC findings would be interpreted. He said he did not wish there to be any discussion but he believed the meeting would accept, as the ‘bottom line’ on detection and attribution:
‘Nevertheless the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.’ << is "suggesting a discernible influence the same as proving a cause?? >>
No one dissented from this ruling and so this is how this famous line came into being.
<< Actually there is evidence that two countries DID disagree:-
"The meeting agreed that a footnote should be added to the final text explaining that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait dissented from the majority view. This footnote was later withdrawn at the countries' own request."
from https://www.nature.com/articles/455737a?draft=collection>>
For Zillman << an Australian delegate >> this is more than another admission of the failure to reach accord. He is surprised and taken aback by the decisive way Bolin resolves a matter of no small import to the whole assessment process.
When the attribution bottom line is shoved back in the bag it is fast approaching midnight, and while the interpreting team and hall management staff could keep the conference going until then, the building would need to be vacated soon after.
It is now a real scramble for the finish.
The Executive Summary approval is hurriedly wrapped up during the final hour while delegations pack up and leave. << more delegations leave - so even less of a "consensus" or a quorum >>
Past midnight, with minutes to go, the only thing left to do is to ‘accept’ the underlying chapters.
<< so....no pressure then!. This isn't consensus by attrition and exhaustion, is it??>>
This would not have been of much concern if it weren’t for the (now even more glaring) inconsistencies between (the body and conclusion) of Chapter 8 << the draft dated 09 Oct 1995 whose primary conclusion is that we can NOT detect the effect of human CO2 on Climate>> and (the newly drafted) D&A section of the Summary. <<ie the summary BY policymakers which says that we CAN just barely detect a slight hint of the effect of human CO2 on Climate>>
The story goes that this Working Group 1 Plenary did indeed give consent for the Lead Author to revise Chapter 8 according to the consensus it had finally achieved. For example, here is Houghton again in a ‘Justification of Chapter 8’:
The plenary meeting finally ‘accepted’ the draft chapters (including Chapter 8) subject to their revision by the lead authors to take into account the guidance provided by the meeting and in particular the need for overall consistency. [Nature 382, 22Aug96].
How explicit was this acceptance and how specific was this guidance is hard to establish. The matter would not be raised at Rome (where only the 9Oct95 draft appeared) and precious little has been obtained recording or discussing the problem before we come to the justifications proffered months later when the controversy broke. But anyway, perhaps it doesn’t matter what was actually said or not said, agreed or not; for, by all accounts, at this stage the meeting had degenerated into a shambles.
<< So, the vaunted "consensus" is one of politicians not scientists. It is not even a consensus of national delegates, because in the end it is imposed by an un-elected official of a government called The United Nations. That official was named Bert Bolin.
I interpret this as consensus by attrition, exhaustion and finally tyranny . The meeting has gone on six hours past its scheduled end time at 6pm. Most of the delegates have left. The ones that are left do not have the strength to oppose Bert Bolin from usurping the political power of the meeting and tyrannically imposing, by dictat and by fiat, the most important sentence in the report.
He is ultimately responsible for authorising the report's most famous sentence :-
"the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate" >>
THE CONTROVERSY BREAKS
The full report is not published until May 1996, within a few days a controversy becomes very public
On June 12, 1996, shortly after formal release of the full, technical report of the IPCC SAR , the Wall Street Journal published a piece entitled "A Major Deception on Global Warming." (<-Seitz, F. 1996. "A Major Deception on Global Warming." Wall Street Journal. New York. June 12.)
Professor Seitz
Professor Seitz was President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and had been President of the National Academy of Sciences in the 1960's.
In 1996 Professor Seitz claimed that the IPCC report had been altered AFTER the scientists of Working Group (WG1) had formally "accepted" it, and that WG1 scientists had not been allowed to respond to those alterations.
What follows is from <start of quote> :-
The article was written by Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University. Seitz is not a climate scientist but a physicist. Nevertheless, his scientific credentials are formidable.(President of the National Academy of Sciences in the 1960's)
In his article, Seitz accused some IPCC scientists of the most "disturbing corruption of the peer-review process" he had ever witnessed.
Seitz's Accusations
Seitz's distress stemmed from the fact that the lead authors of the SAR's Chapter 8 - on detection and attribution - had altered some of its text after the November, 1995 plenary meeting of Working Group I (WGI), in Madrid, at which time the chapter was formally "accepted" by the Working Group.
According to Seitz, since the scientists and national governments who accepted Chapter 8 were never given the chance to review the truly final version, [ ie the "Approved" version ] these changes amounted to deliberate fraud and "corruption of the peer-review process."
Quoting several sentences deleted from the final version of the chapter, Seitz argued that the changes and deletions "remove[d] hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular."
Without directly attributing motives, Seitz implied that the changes had been made in the interests of promoting a particular political agenda.
<end of quote>
<end of quote>
Comment:-
S. Fred Singer ( Professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia ) had earlier disseminated a letter to other IPCC scientists about Chapter 8 of the IPCC Working Group I report, asserting that:
1. Chapter 8 was altered substantially to make it conform to the Summary;
2. Three key clauses — expressing the consensus of authors, contributors, and reviewers — should have been placed into the Summary instead of being deleted from the draft chapter after it had been approved
1. Chapter 8 was altered substantially to make it conform to the Summary;
2. Three key clauses — expressing the consensus of authors, contributors, and reviewers — should have been placed into the Summary instead of being deleted from the draft chapter after it had been approved
What follows is from:- "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years" by By S. Fred Singer
Here are the phrases that were deleted from the final draft:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."
"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."
"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. "
But the following sentence was added in the "revision":
The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [IPCC chapter 8, p.439]
<end of "what follows is from "Unstoppable Global Warming":- ">
<what follows next is from:- Christopher Monkton of Brenchley (2012) >
The scientists’ final draft of the 1995 Report said plainly, on five separate occasions, that no evidence of an anthropogenic influence on global climate was detectable, and that it was not known when such an influence would become evident
However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.
These changes were considered by a political contact group, but they were not referred back to the vast majority of the authors whose texts Dr. Santer had tampered with, and whose five-times-stated principal conclusion he had single-handedly and unjustifiably negated.< end of what follows is from Christopher Monkton>
<< Comment
The first people to deny "the science of climate change" are the politicians who delete that science from the Technical reports. >>
APPROVAL is where they turn "evidence based policy making" into “policy-based evidence-making. APPROVAL is where the science of climate change is denied by politicians.
<<end of comment>>
This next quote is from "Good Bye, Kyoto" by S Fred Singer 2013
"The memorable phrase "the balance of evidence" used in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is essentially meaningless, and certainly not backed by any scientific evidence. It turns out that the two main pieces of evidence, two crucial graphs in the IPCC report , were based on bad information or had actually been doctored [see my Hoover report]."This is about using political arm-twisting of non-scientists to dishonestly claim a consensus of scientists.
See below how a politician changes "a balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence" - a statement created by non-scientists using a political process - into "scientists have reached an unavoidable conclusion"
"the world's scientists have reached an unavoidable conclusion that the worlds changing climactic conditions are more than the natural variability of weather"
From:- The Official Statement of the US delegation to COP 2. Geneva 8–19 July 1996 , said by Nicholas Wirth former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the United States Department of State
It is worth mentioning that even at COP 2 in July 1996, the delegates could not reach a "consensus" so the UN decided to issue a ministerial statement instead of a consensus statement. This statement was "noted" but not adopted by the conference.
This ministerial statement:-
"recognised and endorsed ... AR2 ... as the most comprehensive assessment of the science of climate change......... Ministers believe that ... AR2... should provide a scientific basis ... to eliminate and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases"
Ministerial Declaration, COP 2. Geneva 8–19 July 1996 ( see "Climate policy--from Rio to Kyoto" (2000) by S Fred Singer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX 02
Reports from the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The IPCC was built by politicians and is run by politicians for a political purpose.
And there is also a final "Synthesis Report" report. Allegedly a synthesis of the reports from WG1, WG2 and WG3.
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 Summaries BY policymakers.
* 1 Synthesis Report
WHAT IS NOT PEER REVIEWED IN THE ASSESSSMENT REPORTS
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.
WHAT IS NOT "CONSENSUS SCIENCE" IN THE ASSESSSMENT REPORTS
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 and other 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.
TO RE-ITERATE WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT WAS DONE BY THE SCIENTISTS
The original Technical Report was done by the scientists before:-
- The Summary FOR policymakers, which itself was done before
- The Summary BY policymakers, which itself was done before
- The Press Conference of Fraud, which itself was done before
- The "Smoking gun of 2+2=5" document, which itself was done before
- The original Technical Report was modified to be consistent with the Summary BY Policymakers, which itself was done before
- The altered "Technical Report" was published with all its obvious attempts to mislead
REPORTS THAT ARE NOT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC
- The original Technical Report that was constructed by the scientists.
- The Summary FOR Policymakers
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.
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.
COMMENTS ON JOURNALISM AND THE IPCC REPORTS
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
APPENDIX 03
MORE AND WORSE IPCC SCIENCE
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
"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
“IPCC for AGRICULTURE,”
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."IPCC for SOIL"
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
Remember
"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