Lead Author of UN Climate Report: Government Officials, Not Scientists, Rewrote It

IPCC SRREN Plenary in Abu Dhabi starting 05/05/2011.

Warmists claim that they’re on the side of science and that their magic 97 percent consensus is universal. Here’s what the consensus actually looks like behind the scenes.

It’s not science. It’s politics. Power and profit.

It was already known that the summary of the latest U.N. climate report was substantially edited by political interests.

In this case, the summary wasn’t merely “sexed up” to fool gullible reporters and politicians; it actually direct contradicts the full U.N report in places.

For example, media reports of the summary yelled that global warming was going to cause more wars; the actual report summary says global warming might increase the chances of violent conflict; the report itself says there’s no reason to believe climate change has much to do with violent conflict.  It’s more likely that sustained conflict leads to poor environmental stewardship than the reverse.

These hijinks already led one of the report’s contributors, Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, to refuse to sign the final product, because he was uncomfortable with the tone of hysteria in the report summary.

Now the UK Daily Mail reports on an online letter published by lead author Robert Stavins, in which he alleges an astonishing three quarters of the original document were deleted or revised after a late-night meeting in Berlin:

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.

It’s a bit too late to reform a scam. Isn’t it? Warmunism serves the interests of politicians, not people, individual bribed scientists, not science.

  • liz

    Right. That’s like saying Obama care ought to be reformed.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      It’s hard to say which is worse between the UN and the ACA. They represent the same kind of dangers from different angles and actually the UN can exploit the ACA. They now have a central database to run “global wealth disparity” metrics and to apply their bullshit theories about what should be done. It will be exactly the same model as the “global warming” solution in the form of something like a “carbon tax” or “health disparity” tax. They need to float some trial balloons first to see how to sell it and what to call it.

      I wish those were just paranoid words.

  • glpage

    Much of what is considered science nowadays is not truly science. Scientists tend to work on government funded projects. If their research doesn’t support the ideology of the politicians they tend to not get funded for future research. And that pretty explains the scientific consensus on AGW.

  • UCSPanther

    When supposedly scientific results are fabricated to support a narrative and skepticism is regarded as heresy, it is no longer science. It is an ideology.

    • Steeloak

      It is modern day Lysenkoism.

  • https://plus.google.com/111658787134687480269 Dan Pangburn

    Discover the
    cause of the warming, the end of it, why temperatures are (unfortunately)
    headed down and what to expect.

    There are only two primary drivers of average global temperature change. They very accurately explain
    the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9
    (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low
    temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

    CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

    The drivers are given at


  • CaoMoo

    Oh wow more corruption from the Warming crowd. Yeah when 5th grade science pokes enormous holes in your science well you were screwed to start.

  • CaoMoo

    The IPCC has it’s head so far up it’s own butt it needs a colonoscopy to do a brain scan. Add this to the East Anglia university climate gate shennanigans.