More exactly it is the proof that “Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming” (CAGW) is a HOAX constructed by politicians.
The document is on the website of the IPCC.
It is the proof of political chicanery and shennanagens.
It is a list of political lies and the instructions to substitute them for science
To properly understand it will require a detailed examination of the context in which it appears.
Before I go into detail I would like to use an analogy to explain what is going on.Suppose some scientists produced a report stating that 2+2 = 4 which they gave to some politicians.
Then the politicians altered the report to say that 2+2 = 5
“Science has spoken” and “the consensus of the worlds best scientists is that 2+2=5“
On the first page of this document it says that it contains :- “Changes to the Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers“
End of Analogy
The Meeting of Politicians that Produced the “2+2=5” Document
Lets examine the “2+2=5” document for WG1 of AR5 (for the meaning of this jargon – see the appendix below):-
The proper, formal name for the meeting that produces the smoking gun/2+2=5 document for WG1 of AR5 is “The 12th session of Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” 23-26 SEPTEMBER 2013 – held in Stockholm, Sweden.
We’ll start with a little bit of context to help understand the quotes:-
- A group of scientists produce a technical report of several thousand pages.
- Then a smaller group of scientists – chosen by some politicians in the IPCC, not by the scientists – produce a summary of that technical report called “The Summary For Policymakers” (“SPM”)
- They hand the SPM over to a group of politicians
- The politicians re-write the SPM line by line in a marathon meeting which – in the case of AR5 – lasted four days from Monday 23 Sept 2013 to Thursday 26 September 2013.
- The marathon re-write meeting is immediately followed by a press conference at which the fake science – the altered SPM – is announced to the world as if it were the real science that the scientists had produced
“A big IPCC meeting takes place. Attended by governments. Although some people in the room are scientists, the vast majority are diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats, and assorted other officials .These people then spend the next week re-writing the summary authored by scientists.”
“Since Monday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been in a meeting. The purpose of that meeting is to take a document authored by scientists and ensure that its wording is palatable to the powers that be.”“Every single paragraph in that draft gets projected onto large screens and discussed. The delegation from country X wants two sentences removed. The delegation from country Y insists that a new phrase be inserted. Graphs get added; tables get subtracted. And they keep talking about that one paragraph until all of the countries present are happy with it. Then it’s taken down and the next paragraph is put up on the screen.The bottom line is that this is a week of naked political horse trading that goes on behind closed doors. Journalists are not allowed to witness what takes placeIt’s only after the diplomats have haggled over this Summary – paragraph by paragraph – that the final version gets officially released at a press conferenceBut the bad news doesn’t stop there. There’s actually a step in the IPCC process in which the original, lengthy report gets amended so that it conforms to the politically-negotiated Summary. I am not making this up
“The whole idea of the Approval Session is extraordinary. Every single sentence of the SPM has to be either approved or rejected by delegates from governments. At the Plenary meeting, the draft is projected on a screen sentence by sentence. As each sentence comes up, the chairman asks delegates for comments on it and proposed amendments. …… When the haggling on a sentence is concluded and a consensus obtained, the chairman brings down the gavel, the approved sentence is highlighted on the screen in green, and discussion moves to the next sentence. Very gradually, green highlighting spreads through the report. Five days—Monday to Friday—were set aside for approving the whole 30 pages by this means.
Robert Stavins is a professor of “Business and Government” from Harvard University and is one of the two Coordinating Lead Authors on Chapter 13 of the AR5’s Working Group III report (titled “International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments”).In an April 25, 2014 blog post, titled, “Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken?”, Stavins reproduced the April 17, 2014 letter he had sent (initially privately) to some big-wigs at the IPCC, expressing his problems with the procedure. Below are some key excerpts from Stavins’s letter:
I am writing to you today to express my disappointment and frustration with the process and outcome of the government approval meetings in Berlin this past week, at which the assembled representatives from the world’s governments, considered and, in effect, fundamentally revised or rejected parts of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of IPCC Working Group 3 over a period of five long days (and nights).
as the week progressed, I was surprised by the degree to which governments felt free to recommend and sometimes insist on detailed changes to the SPM text on purely political, as opposed to scientific bases.
The general motivations for government revisions – from most (but not all) participating delegations – appeared to be quite clear in the plenary sessions. These motivations were made explicit in the “contact groups,” which met behind closed doors in small groups with the lead authors on particularly challenging sections of the SPM. In these contact groups, government representatives worked to suppress text that might jeopardize their negotiating stances in international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
I fully understand that the government representatives were seeking to meet their own responsibilities toward their respective governments by upholding their countries’ interests, but in some cases this turned out to be problematic for the scientific integrity of the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
nearly all delegates in the meeting demonstrated the same perspective and approach, namely that any text that was considered inconsistent with their interests and positions in multilateral negotiations was treated as unacceptable. In fact, several (perhaps the majority) of the country representatives in the SPM.5.2 contact group identified themselves as negotiators in the UNFCCC negotiations. To ask these experienced UNFCCC negotiators to approve text that critically assessed the scholarly literature on which they themselves are the interested parties, created an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Thus, the country representatives were placed in an awkward and problematic position by the nature of the process.
from :-link to another sorce
“On the headline statement, which states that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and, since 1950, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia, Saudi Arabia said the statement was “alarmist,” urged qualifying the terms “unequivocal” and “unprecedented,” requested using the year 1850 instead of 1950, and called for a reference to slowed warming over the past 15 years.
Germany, Australia, Chile, Spain, Fiji, New Zealand, the US, Saint Lucia, Tanzania, Mexico, Slovenia, the UK and others supported the statement as presented, with Germany pointing out that AR4 concluded almost the same. Canada pointed out that factors other than warming will be the emphasis in the future. The Russian Federation proposed “changing”, rather than “warming” of the climate system. After some discussion, Saudi Arabia agreed to accept the statement as presented.
What is being reported on in this direct quote from “Summary of the 12th session of Working Group I (WGI) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 36th session of the IPCC.” is that it is diplomatic representatives of countries who are changing the SPM, not scientists. The people involved in making the changes are representing their nation, not the “Truth”.
Politicians propose amendments and other politicians vote them into the SPM, but surely proper science is not done by the vote of non-scientists?
More from this same IISD report from Judith Curry – (Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology)
She chooses to include the following quote about which I find severable notable things:-
“Detection and Attribution of Climate Change:
In drafting the keynote message, the UK suggested adding a sentence that explicitly notes increased evidence of anthropogenic influence since the AR4. This was supported, with several different wording suggestions, by Slovenia, Switzerland, Canada, Fiji, Saint Lucia and Germany, and opposed by Saudi Arabia. A contact group developed a proposal that included text suggested by the UK.”
- The “keynote message” is what most journalists (and therefore ordinary people) THINK was said by scientists.
- Whereas it was actually it was said by non-scientists. It was said by political representatives and diplomats – not scientists.
- The quote reveals that the words about “increased evidence of anthropogenic influence since the AR4” were created and added by politicians – not scientists
- There is no mention of any scientists having noticed an increase in evidence of AGW because it wasn’t scientists who noticed an increase in evidence of MAN-MADE influence on climate – it was politicians.
- It was some diplomatic representative of the UK who proposed the new wording of the “keynote message” and it had to be ADDED to the SPM because it was not already present in the version supplied by the scientists.
- It is politicians who choose to ADD that there is increased evidence of MAN-MADE influence on climate. It wasn’t scientists.
- The politicians don’t cite the actual evidence for their claim about “increased evidence of anthropogenic influence.”
The assessment of evidence and its relative quantity was made by politicians – not scientists.
This wording was opposed by some diplomatic representatives of Saudi Arabia – not by any scientists
This dispute about wording was resolved by some kind of political process – some haggling, “caucus” or sub-meeting called a “contact group” which involved exchanges of political bribes and/or threats – not facts or scientific reasoning.
This dispute was not resolved by a debate between scientists involving scientific data and its interpretation – it was resolved by the votes of politicians.
The politically altered SPM is not peer reviewed and yet it is going to be used to alter the Technical Report (which allegedly IS peer-reviewed)
The politically altered SPM is going to be used to alter the Technical Report. The “smoking gun/2+2=5” document is a list of the alterations. This document is not peer-reviewed either.
The final Technical Report cannot properly be called “Peer Reviewed” either, not once it has been altered to include the non-peer reviewed “science” created by politicians haggling, horse-trading and wrangling.
That quote from Judith Curry – once again – defines the humans involved in re-writing the SPM in terms of the nation-state that they represent. They are not described as scientists, which is OK, because they are not. What is going on is a political process, not a scientific one. Science is being destroyed and replaced with political propaganda.
I repeat, what we have here is diplomatic representatives of nation states who are changing the SPM, not scientists. Politicians are writing a report that they are going to pretend is a report written by scientists.
There is at least one politician who understands what has happened and his name is Senator James Inhofe, (R-Okla.). He is Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
‘Id like to give some quotes from him to show that he understands the “Smoking Gun/2+2=5” report. You could say that the purpose of this (my) article is to convince the reader that every word in the quotes from Inhofe’s is true.
Quotes from Inhoff in 2007 about the SPM:-
“This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain. The media has failed to report that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political delegates and bureaucrats,”
“The UN guidelines themselves mandate that the science be altered to conform to the Summary for Policymakers which is not approved by the scientists, but by political delegates of the UN,”
“First the 18 page Summary for Policy Makers misleads readers and even distorts the underlying scientific conclusions
Second – The scientists did not write this document
Third – The accusation that – the SPM was subsequently and materially altered.”This quote is via:- Hinrichs, Robert J., Ph.D 2008
“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”
OTHER QUOTES ABOUT THE MEETING
“The Summary For Policymakers misrepresents what scientists say and exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty… The IPCC encourages misuse of the summaries and the final version was modified from the draft in a way to exaggerate man-made warming.”.
“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda.”
And Professor Bob Carter – Ottawa, Canada, September 27, 2013:
“No one should trust the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report issued today in Stockholm,” said Professor Bob Carter, Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. “The IPCC has a history of malfeasance that even includes rewording recommendations of expert science advisors to fit the alarmist agenda of participating governments.”
Source – link
So just to re-iterate what the “smoking gun/2+2=5” document is….It is fake science constructed by politicians (NOT scientists) and which is going to be substituted for the actual science that was constructed by scientists (NOT politicians).
The Most Important Changes That The Politicians make
It is diplomats, politicians, foreign affairs specialists, bureaucrats, and assorted other officials that change “Climate change is Natural” into “Climate Change is man-made
It is politicians that decide that “a tiny bit of CORRELATION is proof of CAUSATION”
It is politicians that decide that un-validated mathematical models of a tiny bit of earths history (about 50 years) are proof that humans cause Climate Change.
It is politicians who decide that the frail and flimsy bit of evidence for Man Made Global Warming is satisfactory PROOF of Man Made Global Warming
THE PRESS CONFERENCE
The day after the end of the “Smoking Gun” meeting is a huge press conference that is – in my opinion – the most influential part of the fraud.First of all it puts pressure on the political meeting that preceeds it. The politicians, diplomats and bureaucrats at that meeting are all under time pressure to produce a document to be released at the press conference. That may be why the political wrangling and haggling goes on all night as well as all day.
The document that is released to the press with great fanfare does not mention that it has been extensively altered by politicians. No – the press are told that “this is the voice of science” and “thousands of scientists have spoken.”
The politicians pretend that it was what the scientists had said.
They don’t mention that – “we politicians made this up a couple of days ago and we are now pretending that it is what scientists said.”
They don’t mention that they are going to alter what the scientists had actually said (The “Technical Report”) to match the political propaganda that they have just made up. To match the science that they have lied into existence.
They don’t mention that they have actually put these political alterations in writing – into the “smokin gun/2+2=5” document
What is NOT released at the Press Conference
The politicians deliberately DO NOT release the Technical Report at the Press Conference because that report has yet to be altered to be consistent with the fake science that has been lied into existence by politicians. If the politicians did release the original Technical Report at the same time as the altered SPM then journalists would be able to see that the SPM is full of political lies. The SPM not only makes claims that are not in the Technical Report of which it is supposed to be a summary but actually contains claims that are contradicted by the Technical Report
It is probably constant repetition by the media that has persuaded YOU that the catastrophic effects of AGW are “proven” and that the only way to stop them is a gigantic, world wide program of de-industrialisation. It certainly wasn’t the “scientific evidence”.
I think that the IPCC is a political device for stealing the credibility of science and attaching it to political lies.
Reports from the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The IPCC was built by politicians and is run by politicians for a political purpose.
Every 5 or so years it produces a report called an assessment report (AR). There have been 5 so far.
AR1 was in 1990
AR2 was in 1995
AR3 was in 2001
AR4 was in 2007
AR5 was in 2013
Each report is made up of several sub-reports produced by “Working Groups” (WGs)
WG1 – reports on he CAUSES of climate change
WG2- reports on the EFFECTS of climate change and how to ADAPT to these effects
WG3- reports on MITIGATION of climate change – how to STOP the climate from changing in the first place by reducing the emission of man-made carbon dioxide.
For each of these “Technical” reports from the Working Groups there is also a “Summary For Policymakers” report.
And there is also a final “Synthesis Report” report. Allegedly a synthesis of the reports from WG1, WG2 and WG3.
So, most people think that each Assessment Report (AR) report is made up of 7 sub-reports:-
* 3 Technical reports – One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 3 Summaries For Policymakers – One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 1 Synthesis Report
But there actually 13 reports involved in each AR.
* 3 Technical reports – One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 3 Summaries FOR Policymakers – One each from WG1, WG2 and WG3
* 3 Summaries BY Policymakers – Summaries that have been “Orwellianised” BY politicians to be Summaries with fake science in them.
* 3 “Orwellianised” Technical Reports – Politically altered versions of the Technical Reports retrospectively altered to match the Summary BY policymakers.
* 1 Synthesis Report