Skip to comments.It Didn't Start With Climategate (IPPC peer reviewed docs changed after peer review)
Posted on 01/02/2010 8:52:47 AM PST by Titus-Maximus
The whistleblower at the University of East Anglia who leaked emails and other documents that reveal the fraud that is being perpetrated by the world's leading global warming alarmists did us all a great service. But it is important to realize that the deception didn't just begin: rather, the global warming hysteria movement has been shot through with fraud from the start.
The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. This report was the principal basis for the Kyoto Accord which was signed in 1997, and for the nonsense that has been inflicted on the world's elementary school students ever since.
But the Second Assessment Report was hijacked by an AGW activist who re-wrote key conclusions and injected a level of alarmism that had not been present in the consensus document. You can get the whole story here, along with a great deal more information about the global warming controversy. The Science and Environmental Project summarized what happened as follows:
IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers (SPM), are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Perhaps the most blatant example is IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR), completed in 1995 and published in 1996. Its SPM contains the memorable phrase "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." You may recall that this 1996 IPCC report played a key role in the political deliberations that led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. Nothing of the sort has ever happened. The IPCC has consistently ignored the major natural influences on climate change and has focused almost entirely on human causes, especially on GH gases and more especially on carbon dioxide, which is linked to industrial activities and therefore 'bad' almost by definition.
How then did the IPCC-SAR arrive at "balance of evidence"? It was the work of a then-relatively-junior scientist, Dr Benjamin D. Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), who has recently re-emerged as a major actor in ClimateGate. As a Convening Lead Author of a crucial IPCC chapter, Santer carefully removed any verbiage denying that human influences might be the major or almost exclusive cause of warming and substituted new language. There is no evidence that he ever consulted any of his fellow IPCC authors, nor do we know who instructed him to make these changes and later approved the text deletions and insertions that fundamentally transformed IPCC-SAR.
The event is described by Nature [381(1006):539] and in a 1996 WSJ article by the late Professor Frederick Seitz (See also my Science Editorial #2-09). Seitz compared the draft of IPCC Chapter 8 (Detection and Attribution) and the final printed text. He noted that, before printing, key phrases had been deleted from the draft that had earlier been approved by its several scientist-authors.
This is from Professor Seitz's 1996 Wall Street Journal article:
This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text. Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes." "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
If these were pharmaceutical scientists behaving this way in an FDA process they would all be in jail.
I have advocated jail for these corrupt scientists for a long time!
It’s about time to chase down Al Gore with pitchforks and torches. I have yet to determine whether he is extremely smart or stupid.
But I have determined he is extremely sleazy.
“If these were pharmaceutical scientists behaving this way in an FDA process they would all be in jail.”
i wonder about even that, now days......
what do you suppose Professor Santer’s motivation was/is?
what do you suppose Professor Santers motivation/agenda was/is?
The authorities are in on this. It would take concerted vigilantism to punish the miscreants and to set an example.
What a bunch of crap this AGW BS has been, and really all too many have known it for so long including those pushing it.
Obama and his mob buddies in Chicago with their Carbon Exchange, the Fellow that wormed his way into a position with Wickipedia to “adjust” the data over years of time, the person indicated in this article, and of course Climate-Gate.
There really isn’t any reason this hoax, this ruse should be able to continue costing the World Billions and Billions of dollars for the benefit of a few lousey crooks.
Among the key lines in the original article:
‘...the late Professor Frederick Seitz ... noted that, before printing, key phrases had been deleted from the draft that had earlier been approved by its several scientist-authors.
‘The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
’ “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.” “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” ‘
Seitz was one of the earliest skeptics to question this whole scam, and was a true hero in his opposition - it’s a shame he’s not around to see how it’s been exposed with the CRU papers.
“There really isnt any reason this hoax, this ruse should be able to continue...”
On second thought there is reason the hoax, the ruse continues. THEY are our current lot of leaders.
Their number one evangelist: AlGore! And he is laughing all the way to the bank!
Powerline does it again. This might be said to be old news—about 15 years old, in fact. But it all slipped under the radar at the time.
I thought the Kyoto Treaty business was bogus from the start, but I missed these articles revealing that outright fraud was involved in the “editing” process.
And, yes, there’s no question that this is CRIMINAL FRAUD, undertanken for the obvious purpose of enriching and empowering the perps. Someone should charge all these people under the RICO act. But of course that’s unlikely as long as their political enablers are in power in Washington and the other western capitals.
In any other scientific community such actions would be cause for you to be permanently disgraced and FIRED.
We are living in the MATRIX were we can no longer believe ANYONE especially if they are in the government or media.
The only thing missing are the pods and all the hoses connected to our bodies. Instead of being used for energy we are all simply cows to be milked for cash to fund the ruling elite in the world. When they have drained the cash from us, the death panels will determine our fate.
It's all about money. Those that went along remained gainfully employed and got grant after grant. Those few that did speak up were shouted down and/or hounded out of the field of study. A brave few (too few) persevered in the face of this.
Wow. You may be spot on.
I remember reading about the IPCC changing the conclusions on the second report more than ten years ago and very few paid attention and nobody listened.
Back in my college days in the 80’s when the global ice age rhetoric switched almost overnight to global warming, we all knew it was BS. The cynical ones among us saw the opportunity for socialism and the rest of us were ignored.
That is the FDA process, except the FDA has more muscle to go after the skeptics.
.....and who was president fifteen years ago?
A Major Deception on Global Warming
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996
IMO These op eds need to be brought to the attention of FOX, Drudge, Beck, Rush etc....Maybe their own thread.
The Sun, in their belief system, is pure and unchangeable. Ergo, any climate changes on Earth must originate with someone who is "not a Hindu god" ~ to wit, people.
Even the Earth itself is a god in that system, as are volcanos, etc.
So, what to do? Well, we could replace all the folks at the current IPCC with other Hindus who worship the god of money. Sure give us a different take on climatology!
Sir John Houghton, Chair IPCC working group got a letter from the US State Department 15 Nov 1995 demanding that the final ‘amended’ text be held until the next IPCC (political) meeting in Madrid.
This was from Day Olin Mount, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. The Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs was at that time Timothy Wirth (D-CO)- Wirth was an ardent warmist and close ally of the Clinton/Gore administration.
It would appear that Mount was a civil servant under Wirth’s control who surprisingly went on to become US Ambassador to Iceland - a plum job usually reserved for high rank political officials close to the White House not to ordinary Civil Servants.
Santer belongs in prison. - What greater larceny could ever exist?
Money. LLNL is trying to sell some sort of carbon sequestration technology.
I hate the word, but there is no other term to describe the AGW movement: Conspiracy.
No mention of the real culprits behind Kyoto.
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.