The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently released its fifth report (AR5) amid claims of even greater certainty that human carbon emissions are driving us towards climate catastrophe. To determine whether the threat of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is real, we need to study the wide body of climate science which is the role of the IPCC.
In the body of AR5 are the scientific papers which represent the accumulated knowledge of the climate system at this time but most people (particularly politicians and journalists) don't have the time, expertise or inclination to digest all the papers for themselves, so they rely on the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM).
The SPM is a crucial document(s) which acts as the transmission mechanism to turn dense academic papers on climate science and impacts into government policies. It is also relied on
by many as the definitive authority on climate science but in this regard it fails miserably.
The SPM is drawn up, not by scientists representing the academic papers underpinning AR5 but by a narrow coterie of climate scientists and some 195 government delegations which "negotiate" the final text. Negotiate is the operative word because huge wealth transfers between countries are potentially involved and those anxious to get their hands on the cash have to ensure the CAGW myth remains intact. Most of the delegates are incentivised to maximise the alarm not just because of financial inducements but because their status and credibility is staked on CAGW. They cannot afford to let the truth emerge.
Two leading IPCC authors have written letters explaining why they've distanced themselves from the summary and expose how many statements made by scientists in the original draft are removed, ensuring that any doubts or evidence which undermines the CAGW theory are suppressed. After all the caveats, doubts and contradictory evidence are removed from the SPM, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that man is causing global warming and further wealth can be extracted in the name of "saving the planet".
Stavins and Tol on IPCC WG3 by Judith Curry
"Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment."
"The Himalayan glacier melt (by 2035) really was the least of the errors’ , ‘The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think’ – ‘Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick’ -Richard Tol (lead IPCC author)
"Over the course of the two hours of the contact group deliberations, it became clear that the only way the assembled government representatives would approve text for SPM.5.2 was essentially to remove all “controversial” text (that is, text that was uncomfortable for any one individual government), which meant deleting almost 75% of the text, including nearly all explications and examples under the bolded headings. In more than one instance, specific examples or sentences were removed at the will of only one or two countries, because under IPCC rules, the dissent of one country is sufficient to grind the entire approval process to a halt unless and until that country can be appeased." - Robert Stavins (lead IPCC author)