IPCC Summary Report, Part 2

IPCC Summary Report, Part 2

It’s clear from Part 1 that:

  1. The SMP is prepared by politicians and can reflect their views rather than those of the scientists, and
  2. The politicians can override the scientists to make the Assessment Report conform to the SPM.

The CO2 Coalition Amicus Curiae brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, also contained an example of where the IPCC Assessment report was changed to conform with the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) written by the politicians.

As shown in Part 1:

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).

[Begin quotation from Amicus Curiae brief.]

IPCC governments’ control of full reports using Rule No. 2 is poignantly demonstrated by the IPCC’s rewrite of the scientific conclusions reached by independent scientists in their draft of Chapter 8 of the IPCC report Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change (“1995 Science Report”). The draft by the independent scientists concluded:

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate warming observed) to (manmade) causes.” Frederick Seitz, “A Major Deception on Climate Warming,” Wall Street Journal (June 12, 1996).

However, the government written SPM proclaimed the exact opposite: 

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” 1995 Science Report SPM, p. 4.

What happened to the independent scientists’ draft? 

IPCC Rule No. 2 was applied, and their draft was rewritten to be consistent with the SPM in numerous ways:

  • Their draft language was deleted.
  • The SPM’s opposite language was inserted in the published version of Chapter 8 in the 1995 Science Report, on page 439: 

“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8 … now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.

The IPCC also changed “more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report … after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.” Seitz, supra.

[End quotation from Amicus Curiae brief.]

Conclusion

The politicians changed the report written by the scientists so that it would be consistent with the SPM written by the politicians.

The report now reads:

“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8 … now points towards a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Whereas it originally read:

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate warming observed) to (manmade) causes.”

As a result, the pubic was told there is a discernible human influence on global climate when the scientists said none had been positively identified.

A legitimate scientific organization wouldn’t allow politicians to overrule scientists.

Why would our country rely on such an organization?

Link to Amicus Curiae https://bit.ly/3QSuyCn

Use this link in an email to let others know about this article https://bit.ly/3AqFm53 

. . .

 

(165)

Please follow and like us:

5 Replies to “IPCC Summary Report, Part 2”

    • The IPCC rules haven’t changed. Politicians write the SPM and can replace scientists comments with their own interpretations.

  1. Thanks for the reference –

    AMICUS CURIAE-
    DR. WILLIAM HAPPER, DR. RICHARD S. LINDZEN, AND THE CO2 COALITION
    IN SUPPORT OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE STATES

    as it was filed in June of 2022.
    _