An insiders report on the IPCC process should be shocking given the reliance of our media and governments on their pronouncements. My favourite topical example is of course the switch from petrol to diesel cars because diesel was supposedly greener. It would be hysterical if we weren’t actually squandering billions of dollars on pointless research and killing people in the here and now as a result.
Originally posted at Quadrant online
The basis for the Paris climate talks in December is “the science” produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The science must be good because it’s coming from the world’s top climate-type scientists, or so the story goes.
Well, the story is guff.
The IPCC scientists aren’t the best available, far from it. They’re a motley crew assembled via a typical United Nations boondoggle that stacks the scientific ranks with heavy quotas for Third Worlders, along with special consideration for females. The IPCC rules explain that the IPCC hierarchy “shall reflect balanced geographical representation with due consideration for scientific and technical requirements.” (My emphasis).
The senior scientists draft the all-important Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs), as distinct from their thousands of back-up pages of science studies. Then politicians and bureaucrats, not the scientists, sculpt the wording on the final drafts…
View original post 2,829 more words