- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,023
- 47,212
- 2,180
The warmist priesthood claims that the IPCC reports are the work of scientists. Now we have proof of what we always knew, that these reports are pure politics. Scientists are there merely to apply a gloss of scientific respectability.
Lead Author of UN Climate Report: Government Officials, Not Scientists, Rewrote It | FrontPage Magazine
Lead Author of UN Climate Report: Government Officials, Not Scientists, Rewrote It | FrontPage Magazine
It was already known that the summary of the latest U.N. climate report was substantially edited by political interests.
In this case, the summary wasnt merely sexed up to fool gullible reporters and politicians; it actually direct contradicts the full U.N report in places.
For example, media reports of the summary yelled that global warming was going to cause more wars; the actual report summary says global warming might increase the chances of violent conflict; the report itself says theres no reason to believe climate change has much to do with violent conflict. Its more likely that sustained conflict leads to poor environmental stewardship than the reverse.
These hijinks already led one of the reports contributors, Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, to refuse to sign the final product, because he was uncomfortable with the tone of hysteria in the report summary.
Now the UK Daily Mail reports on an online letter published by lead author Robert Stavins, in which he alleges an astonishing three quarters of the original document were deleted or revised after a late-night meeting in Berlin:
Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious conflict of interest between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.
In this case, the summary wasnt merely sexed up to fool gullible reporters and politicians; it actually direct contradicts the full U.N report in places.
For example, media reports of the summary yelled that global warming was going to cause more wars; the actual report summary says global warming might increase the chances of violent conflict; the report itself says theres no reason to believe climate change has much to do with violent conflict. Its more likely that sustained conflict leads to poor environmental stewardship than the reverse.
These hijinks already led one of the reports contributors, Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, to refuse to sign the final product, because he was uncomfortable with the tone of hysteria in the report summary.
Now the UK Daily Mail reports on an online letter published by lead author Robert Stavins, in which he alleges an astonishing three quarters of the original document were deleted or revised after a late-night meeting in Berlin:
Prof Stavins claimed the intervention amounted to a serious conflict of interest between scientists and governments. His revelation is significant because it is rare for climate change experts to publicly question the process behind the compilation of reports on the subject.
