Posted by Marc Morano Marc_Morano@epw.Senate.Gov (January 31, 2007 3:05 PM)
***Be Sure and Watch Senator Inhofe Debate Global Warming With Senator Barbara Boxer tonight at 9pm ET on CNN’s Larry King Live. (Also appearing Bjorn Lomborg & MIT’s Richard Lindzen)
Senator Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, also exposed how the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
Senator Inhofe pointed out to CNN’s American Morning anchor O’Brien that the international media buzz surrounding the new UN Summary for Policymakers fails to note that this week’s final draft of the UN release was not approved by scientists but by politically motivated UN bureaucrats. [Note: The UN’s political agenda prompted one of the most respected experts on hurricanes, Dr. Christopher Landsea, to resign as one of the lead authors of the IPCC process. Landsea accused the UN of pursuing a political rather than a scientific agenda. In addition, Richard Lindzen, a prominent MIT meteorologist, who was a contributing author to a Chapter in the IPCC’s third assessment, among others has said that the Summary for Policymakers did not reflect the scientific work he conducted. (Link: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=21CC88EC-CCA6-4A61-8C2E-78FA8DE4850D ) ]
“What you're going to get on Friday is not the fourth assessment of the IPCC. You're going to get the summary for policymakers. Now, you won't get the report from scientists probably until May or June,” Inhofe said on CNN Wednesday morning.
Inhofe then went on to quote an excerpt directly from the IPCC guidelines. The “Principles Governing IPCC Work” clearly states in its Appendix A on page four that the scientific work will be altered to conform to the media-hyped Summary for Policymakers:
"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," the IPCC guidelines on page read. (Link - PDF http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf )
Inhofe’s criticism has been echoed by the UK’s Lord Nigel Lawson – former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of the House of Lords Committee that reviewed the IPCC process. Lawson has called for the abolishment of the UN’s IPCC.
“I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution, it has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change…” Lawson said in 2005. (Link https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=73cf1ab4-802a-23ad-429b-946740cdfca1&Region_id=&Issue_id= )
Other critics of the IPCC process like Steve McIntyre (one of the individuals responsible for debunking the Hockey Stick temperature graph) agree with Senator Inhofe and have already pointed out the serious problems with the UN mandating that the scientific work be altered to fit its political agenda.
“So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me,” McIntyre explained. (Link: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1101 )
Harvard University Physicist Lubos Motl also slammed the UN.
"These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it. Instead, they will "adjust" the technical report so that it looks consistent," Motl said. (Link: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/ipcc-ar4.html )
Motl also cited climate science Fred Singer claims that IPCC lead author Ben Santer was told to revise Chapter 8 of 1996 IPCC-SAR (Second Assessment Report) to "conform" to the politically adopted Summary for Policy Makers. See Motl’s website (link: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/ipcc-ar4.html )
Senator Inhofe has long been a critic of the UN’s IPCC process, having outlined his concerns in a December 7, 2005 letter to IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri. Senator Inhofe wrote that the UN’s “science has been manipulated in order to reach a predetermined conclusion.” (Link: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=B5B423AC-B42C-4879-91CE-348E78AAE64B )
In addition, French President Jacques Chirac provided a key political motive as to why the IPCC process, and in particular the Kyoto Protocol, are being promoted by so many. [Note: Despite Kyoto having virtually no measurable temperature impact, even if it were fully complied with by ratifying nations, which is not close to happening – 13 of the EU-15 nations are failing to meet emissions reduction targets.] Chirac said in 2000 that Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=07F23E38-D271-4300-AC40-90C84A49134A See also that Canada’s Prime Minister has concerns about Kyoto. See: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/30/harper-kyoto.html
Senator Inhofe last appeared on CNN’s American Morning on October 3, 2006. [See: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=8A7668E8-DFD5-4BCB-BD3D-FE223DFE2CC3 ]
- A Skeptic's Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism - (2.3 MBs)