Government Climate Science Reaches Conclusions Years Before The Research Is Done

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) announced the results of their 2014 study, four years before the study was done.

Next climate warming report will be dramatically worse: UN | The Independent

The name of the IPCC is a dead giveway that they are a political organization designed to promote a predetermined conclusion, not a scientific body.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Government Climate Science Reaches Conclusions Years Before The Research Is Done

  1. R. Shearer says:

    As I recall, that Cancun summit coincided with several low temperature records being set there.

  2. Andy DC says:

    If it is settled science and they know what they are going to say years ahead of time (it’s much worse than we thought!), there is obviously no reason to fund their so-called research.

  3. Anon says:

    This continues a long pattern. Remember that Global Warming was presented as a dire threat to Congress by James Hansen in 1988. Think about that, the paucity of data there must have been then, in addition to the Earth emerging from a cold period a decade earlier in which many scientists were predicting another ice age. Yet Hansen and his fellow AGW alarmists presented this to Congress as indisputable science. I am beginning to believe the indisputability of global warming emerged in conjunction with the idea. Then, as now, no data was / is necessary.

  4. Gator says:

    I have to agree, they are getting worse, less and less scientific over time.

  5. scott allen says:

    “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

    IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

  6. The Principles governing IPCC work are more or less free from sound scientific principles – no mentioning of scrutiny or application of a sound scientific method there. Rather than imposing <a href=https://principlesofscience.wordpress.com/2017/08/06/principles-of-science-and-ethical-guidelines-for-scientific-conduct-v8-0/ on IPCC, United Nations allowed IPCC to be governed by:
    – the unscientific principle to: “concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process” (§1)
    – the unscientific principle to: “In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus.”(§10)
    – an approval process and organization principle which must, by its nature, diminish dissenting views.:”differing views shall be explained and, upon request, recorded.” (§10) “Conclusions drawn by IPCC Working Groups and any Task Forces are not official IPCC views until they have been accepted by the Panel in a plenary meeting.” (§11)

    • The messed up sentence/link was supposted to look like this:
      “Rather than imposing sound scientific principles on IPCC, United Nations allowed IPCC to be governed by:”

    • Gail Combs says:

      The IPCC is a PURELY POLITICAL BODY which uses fake science to justify it’s predetermined conclusions in order to make it’s totalitarian measures palatable to the sheeple.

      Is the IPCC being consistent in both draft (scientific) and final (political) figures , including non-peer reviewed content?

      NO! The IPCC has no reason and no desire to be consistent with peer-reviewed or non-peer reviewed content.

      The IPCC only needs to be consistent with the decisions made by politicians when amending and approving the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

      When John Houghton was IPCC Chairman. He decreed:
      “We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
      This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM. This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal.

      Such adjustment of Reports to agree with the SPM is stated in Appendix A of the AR5. It says

      4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
      Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.

      I would be grateful if anybody were able to explain why some people like Seth Borenstein and the US Congress want to think the IPCC is a scientific organization when the purely political nature of the IPCC is declared by its name, its nature, its governing principles and its official procedures as stated in its own words in its own documents.

      The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”. The conclusion that there IS human caused climate change is ALREADY a given and therefore does not need to be proved.

      This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. Near the beginning of that document says

      ROLE
      2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

      So, the IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science. That has NEVER been its role.
      The IPCC exists to provide
      (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
      and
      (b) “and options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

      Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

      Since a draft of the IPCC report BEFORE the politicians got at it was made available this has become evident by comparing the before and after copies.

      FIXING THE FACTS: McIntyre on IPCC’s switching the pea under the thimble

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.