Trenberth: IPCC To Change A Lot Based On Government Input

Don’t forget, this is supposed to be about Science (via Tom Nelson)

(Boulder Daily Camera) [Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at NCAR] “But how these things get portrayed, and the wording used to describe them, may change, to try to make it more clear. The caveat is that that’s not the final version.”

That was seconded by Trenberth — who has attended the IPCC sessions in the past but won’t be doing so this year.

“It’s going to change a lot,” he said. “How it gets said, and the wording, and what gets emphasized and what gets dismissed is decided by the government representatives. And there is usually a war of sorts that goes on in that room, between governments who are determined to have a clear and accurate report, and some governments who are trying to muddy the language and downgrade the language.

“For the 1990, ’95 and 2001 reports, the main countries that were working to obfuscate and diminish the language were the OPEC countries, led by Saudi Arabia,” Trenberth said. “And the 2007 report, the country with a strong delegation and strong objections was China, backed up by Saudi Arabia.

“There is supposed to be unanimous consensus. And that is very hard to achieve.”

The struggle to reach consensus, Trenberth said, “is an interesting process, but it’s a brutal process. The chair has to have an amazingly robust bladder.”

So, politics, not science. Thanks for the confirmation.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

One Response to “Trenberth: IPCC To Change A Lot Based On Government Input”

  1. Gail Combs says:

    And this is SCIENCE???? ROTFALMAO!!!

    The cat is now out of the bag the IPCC report on the climate is purely POLITICAL!

    Not that anyone who bothered to read couldn’t see that before:
    “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is no quite so simple.”

    —Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999

    “Keith’s [Briffa] series…differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”

    —Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999

    “…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”

    —Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003

    “By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”

    —Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004

    “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”

    —Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008

    “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    —Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009

    http://www.masterresource.org/2013/06/revisting-climategate-climatism-falters/

Bad Behavior has blocked 7184 access attempts in the last 7 days.