Sunday, 27 April 2014

The credibility of IPCC in tatters: Censored Harvard professor says document is "a summary by policymakers, not a summary for them"

For years now it has been clear that the entire IPCC process has been heavily politicized. Here is the latest proof:

A top US academic has dramatically revealed how government officials forced him to change a hugely influential scientific report on climate change to suit their own interests. 
Harvard professor Robert Stavins electrified the worldwide debate on climate change on Friday by sensationally publishing a letter online in which he spelled out the astonishing interference.
He said the officials, representing ‘all the main countries and regions of the world’ insisted on the changes in a late-night meeting at a Berlin conference centre two weeks ago.
Three quarters of the original version of the document ended up being deleted.
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. --

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.’


OzTones said...

Re the sentence "He was one of only two scientists present" in the above report, while I wholly support Stavins speaking out about something there have been strong rumours of throughout the IPCC's existence, I'd like to point out that he's not a "scientist", at least not in the sense most of us think of the term. In his own blog ( he describes himself as "the Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, and Chairman of the Environment and Natural Resources Faculty Group." So, he's an economist. He explicitly states his comments don't refer to the Technical Summary of the report (i.e. the science) but to the "Summary for Policymakers" on "International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments".

Beau Jeste said...

ionskriSounds to me like to many people are truly swallowed the IPCC/NWO/Al Gore AGW lie. Yes their is a need to better use the of energy available sources....

But the IPCC is an intergovernmental body made up of governments, that do one thing - ram the IPCC agenda down our throats and at the same time, open new oil fields, build new pipelines and start wars over oil and gas.

In short, we're all being used.

Head of the IPCC, Rajinda Pachauri, is a railway engineer and a part time pornographic novel writer who has made millions in India on the back of insider tarding investments in Indian renewable energy busness and coal power electricity generating plants. Do you trust someone like that to tell you to pay carbon taxes and ditch you car for a bicycle? Or do you think for yourself and see him for the fraud he is? Mmmm… let me think…

Meanwhile the UN/IPCC unacceptably continue to push CO2 as the cause for climate change but refuse to acknowledge the military has been actively engaged in Climate Warming Weapons Technologies for more than 20 years and that 106 countries have weather modification programmes.

Human-caused global warming is pretty much a farce. It is a lie, funded by elites who believe the next phase of governance is world governance, it the transition from nation states to world government should not occur by war or by natural chance, but should be managed under their control. You have to have overwhelming global sized problems that frighten everyone on the globe, like terrorism and global climate disaster, which can only be solved by global cooperation, in order to facilitate a voluntary acquiescence to their rule. Remember the 'War on Terror'?

How can you trust anything that come out of the IPCC?

Yes there is an undeniable argument for cutting down on fossil fuels and promoting sustainable living - please don’t fall for their lies, we're just playing into their hands...