…IPCC Summary Report, Part 1…
The IPCC issues its Summary Report for Policy Makers (SPM) after it issues its Assessment Reports.
The Assessment reports are prepared by Scientists, while the Summary for Policy Makers is prepared by politicians.
Purportedly, the SPM reflects the science of the Assessment Report.
However, the politicians insert their views about climate into the Summary Report, AND also change the Assessment Report so it agrees with the Summary Report for Policy Makers.
In other words, the Summary Report for Policy Makers (SPM) is a political document that may override the science in the Assessment Report.
The media uses the SPM when it reports on the IPCC. Few people actually read the actual Assessment Report that was prepared by scientists.
The public therefore gets a misleading perspective on the science of climate change.
Recently, the CO2 Coalition filed an Amicus Curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which contained a description of the SPM and how it is prepared.
This legal document contains facts that confirm the SPM is prepared by politicians who can also change the Assessment Report that was prepared by scientists.
The following is quoted directly from the brief where it discusses the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon (SCC,TSD Rule)[Begin quotation from Amicus Curiae brief.]
D: The SCC TSD Rule is Scientifically Invalid for Relying On IPCC Government Dictated Opinions
The SCC TSD Rule also explained that key numbers it used in its estimates were based in part, as noted, on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Synthesis Report in 2007 (IPCC AR4) and that four “recent scientific assessments by the IPCC.” Id. p. 32. The five IPCC publications relied upon were:
1. IPCC 2007 Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report;
2. IPCC 2014 Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report;
3. IPCC 2018 Global Warming of 1.5°C;
4. IPCC 2019a Climate Change and Land; and
5. IPCC 2019b Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.
However, unknown to most, two IPCC rules require that IPCC governments control what is published in its Summaries for Policymakers (“SPMs”), which in turn controls what is published in IPCC full reports. (EmphasisAdded)
The picture following tells all.
This is not how scientific knowledge is determined. In science, as the Lysenko experience chillingly underscores, and Richard Feynman, as noted, emphasized:
“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles.”
The two IPCC rules dictating IPCC governments’ control of what is written in the SPMs and IPCC reports, line by line, are:
IPCC SPM Rule No.1: All Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) Are Approved Line by Line by Member Governments
“IPCC Fact Sheet: How does the IPCC approve reports? ‘Approval’ is the process used for IPCC Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries, in consultation with the scientists responsible for drafting the report.”
Since governments control the SPMs, the SPMs are merely government opinions and therefore, have no value as scientific evidence.
What about the thousands of pages in the IPCC reports? A second IPCC rule requires that everything in an IPCC published report must be consistent with what the governments agree to in the SPMs about CO2 and fossil fuels. Any drafts the independent scientists write are rewritten as necessary to be consistent with the SPM.
IPCC Reports Rule No. 2: Government SPMs Override Any Inconsistent Conclusions Scientists Write for IPCC Reports
IPCC Fact Sheet: “’Acceptance’ is the process used for the full underlying report in a Working Group Assessment Report or a Special Report after its SPM has been approved…. Changes …are limited to those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers.” IPCC Fact Sheet, supra. (Emphasis added).[End quotation from Amicus Curiae brief.]
Part 2 will expand on how governments override facts established by scientists and will also contain an example from the brief.
It’s clear that:
- The SMP is prepared by politicians and can reflect their views on climate rather than those of the scientists, and
- The politicians can override the scientists to make the Assessment Report conform to the SPM.
Since the media uses the SPM to report on the IPCC’s conclusions about climate change, the public is being denied the true facts about climate change.
Link to Amicus Curiae https://bit.ly/3QSuyCn
Use this link in an email to let others know about this article https://bit.ly/3Aeruea
. . .
Like John Colemen, founder of The Weather Channel, said about man-made climate change … “It is a hoax.”
Correct. Thanks for your comment.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #511 – Watts Up With That?