Harvard Professor Robert Stavins, one of two lead authors of the latest report from the climate change thugs in the United Nation’s IPCC, released an online letter yesterday letting the truth fly. John Hayward writing at Human Events says the changes to the report summary, which is the only part of the report widely read, was “considerably more alarmist” than the report itself.” The whole mess he says is a “smelly little onion of hype….”
Prof Stavins told The Mail on Sunday yesterday that 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.’…
Some deletions were made at the insistence of only one or two nations – because under IPCC rules, the reports must be unanimous…
His comments follow a decision two weeks earlier by Sussex University’s Professor Richard Tol to remove his name from the summary of an earlier volume of the full IPCC report, on the grounds it had been ‘sexed up’ by the same government officials and had become overly ‘alarmist’…
Prof Judith Curry, the head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, said that between them, Professors Tol and Stavins had shown the process was ‘polluted by obvious politics’. Source: Mail Online
There’s some controversy over exactly how much the executive summary was “sexed up,” and who was responsible. One contributor to the IPCC project, Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, refused to sign the final report because he was “uncomfortable” with how “the four horsemen of the Apocalypse” could be heard galloping through its executive summary. He’s now facing a smear campaign from the Church of Global Warming, coordinated by someone who isn’t even a climate scientist.
So it’s worth diving deeper into the report, where a much more cautious picture of the state of climate science comes into view. Gone are some of the false alarmist claims from the last report, such as the forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 or that hurricanes are becoming more intense. “Current data sets,” the report admits, “indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.” Recall the false claims of climate cause and storm effect last year after Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines.
Absent, too, are claims such as the one made in 2005 that global warming would create 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 (later pushed back to 2020). In its place, we have the refreshingly honest admission that “current alarmist predictions of massive flows of so-called ‘environmental refugees’ or ‘environmental migrants’ are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather events and predictions for future migration flows are tentative at best.”
The report is also more cautious about temperature predictions. It acknowledges that the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 “is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951,” and it predicts modest temperature increases through 2035 of between 1° and 1.5° Celsius. More importantly, it acknowledges that “the innate behavior of the climate system imposes limits on the ability to predict its evolution.”…
All of this vindicates what we wrote about the 2007 report: “Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.”…
The IPCC also turns out to have an agenda that’s less about climate change than income inequality and redistribution.
Remember when Dr. Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) was disgraced and forced to step down for a time for manipulating the “hockey stick graph,” was asked how often scientists asked to see his “raw data, methodology and computer codes,” and he replied “never.”
In an interview with the BBC, Jones was asked if the “rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical,” he would not address 1860-1880 due to lack of data, but regarding 1975-2009 and 1975-1998, he said those periods are similar and any rates of warming are not “statistically significantly different.” Jones based some of his work on “urban warming” on heat detectors positioned on airport jet runways and in odd places in deserts. It’s all about money. It’s always all about the money.
If you would like to receive Maggie’s Notebook daily posts direct to your inbox, no ads, no spam, EVER, enter your email address in the box below.