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.