Skip to comments.Top climate expert's sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report
Posted on 04/27/2014 1:20:31 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
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.
His comments follow a decision two weeks earlier by Sussex Universitys 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 Stavins letter provoked a response from Bob Ward, policy director of the London School of Economics Grantham Institute and a fierce critic of those who dissent from climate change orthodoxy.
Mr Ward asked on Twitter whether it showed the IPCC government approval process is broken.
Yesterday he admitted the affair showed that the IPCC is not a perfect process, though its hard to imagine a better one.
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.
The IPCC headquarters in Geneva could not be reached for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Two words ... Witness Protection
It looks like a few are going to try to salvage some scientific reputation. I wouldn’t let the rest wash drilling mud off cuttings samples.
Below is his letter published at his site; extreme butt kissing and hand holding so as not to offend the powers that be for his pointing out that politician’s reps cut out all their wonderful work and left it lying on the in-the-self-interest-of-governments’ talking points floor, but here is quote [which reminds me of “If you like it you can keep it ACA talking points - and Pelosi’s “You have to pass the healthcare bill to find out what’s in it.”].
“........Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all controversial text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased.....”
The only question, of course, is one of whether the “controversial text” so eliminated showed the claimed effects were not nearly as severe (if they were significant at all) as the official version being used to push for legislation, taxation, treaties, and other sanctions which debilitate the industrialized world.
"...[Stavins'] comments follow a decision two weeks earlier by Sussex Universitys 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..... "
"More from Stavin's blog entry leading up to his quoted and now circulated letter linked in Post #5:
"......Before returning to the topic of todays blog entry the SPM [Summary for Policy Makers) process and outcome I want to emphasize that the IPCCs Working Group III Technical Summary and the underlying Working Group III report of 15 chapters were completely untouched by the government approval process of the Summary for Policymakers. So, the crucial IPCC products the Technical Summary and the 15 chapters of WG 3 retain their full scientific integrity, and they merit serious public attention. Now, back to the SPM process and outcome
Two words ... Witless Protection
He is upset that the folks paying him want a product which achieves their agenda?
Or....he's upset that there are forces at work that will ruin a man for aspiring to the truth.
When the world warms up enough your, “glass half full” will evaporate. /s
Two good documentaries on how dissenting scientists are silenced are Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” an Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It”.
The hoax is being acknowledged?
Is this not an Admission of Fraud?? And shouldn’t he and the rest be in Prison??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.