Total Pageviews

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

The Politics of the IPCC Summary Report


Scientist Frederick Seitz, from the August 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal:

"… (Professor Frederick Seitz) compared the draft approved by the authors of IPCC-SAR (UNs IPCC Summary Report) Chapter 8 (Detection and Attribution) and the final printed text. 

He noted that key (scientific) phrases had been deleted from the approved draft before printing. 

(Seitz said) 
"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

Below are some of the scientist's sentences that clearly stated their uncertainty about the climate … they were removed by politicians who write the final version of the IPCC Summary:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

“No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed to date) to anthropogenic (man-made) causes.”

“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”