Another compelling commonsense “climate-change” article from ‘The Telegraph’, By Christopher Booker. One of the important revelations here is the blatant departures from scientific and ethical principles used in concocting the latest released IPCC report.
Bold emphasis is my idea of highlighting the more potent arguments. Difficult, actually, to not highlight it all. It is damning evidence, impossible to refute, and needs to be read by the whole world.
The IPCC and its reports have been shaped by a close-knit group of scientists, all dedicated to the cause
Last weekend, something very odd happened. On Friday we were told that in Stockholm the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) had published a report saying that it was now “extremely likely” that the world faces disastrous man-made climate change. But this was merely a “summary” for politicians and the media of a scientific report that was not published until three days later.
We then learnt that this “Summary for Policymakers” had been argued over for days and sleepless nights by hundreds of politicians, officials and scientists, but, weirdly, that the scientific report it supposedly summarised had subsequently been amended to bring it into line with the summary. One obvious change from previous drafts was the marked downplaying of any reference to how, in recent years, global temperatures have so notably failed to rise as the IPCC’s computer models predicted.
This was an uncanny replay of the first scandal to hit the IPCC back in 1996, when again the “summary” thrashed over by politicians and a few key scientists was made more alarming than the report proper by inserting a claim that there was now “a discernible human influence” on the world’s climate.
Scientists who had approved the report protested that there was nothing in their text to justify this. But, to their amazement, they discovered that their agreed version had been amended to include this very phrase, citing as its authority two papers not yet published by Ben Santer, an American scientist who had also played a key part in drafting the summary.
All this, and the revelation that Santer had deleted 15 passages casting doubt on man-made warming from the agreed text, famously prompted Prof Frederick Seitz, a revered former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to protest that never in 60 years as a scientist had he “witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process”. Last weekend Dr Santer was again playing a part in the events that led to a virtual repeat of what happened in 1995.
- IPCC Officially Kills Off Catastrophic Climate Fears (climatism.wordpress.com)
- Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report (thenewamerican.com)
- The ice is not melting, yet still the scaremongers blunder on (junkscience.com)