When Science Gets Hijacked by Politics



How UN Structures Were Designed To Prove Human CO2 Was Causing Global
Warming

Dr. Tim Ball

April 30, 2008

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840

QUOTE: "The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct
contradiction to this scientific method. They set out to prove the
theory rather than disprove it."

QUOTE: "The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole
basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change."

QUOTE: "The IPCC and those who were chosen or chose to participate were
locked in to a conclusion by the rules, regulations and procedures
carefully crafted by Maurice Strong. These predetermined the outcome - a
situation in complete contradiction to the objectives and methods of
science."

QUOTE: "Houghton gave an example of a disastrous statement when he
announced "...the impacts of global warming are like a weapon of mass
destruction", which is followed by the claim that it kills more people
than terrorism. Trouble is more people die of cold each year than heat"

QUOTE: "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen"

In previous related articles (Environmental Extremism and Historical and
philosophical context of the climate change debate. and How the world
was misled about global warming and now climate change) we examined how
environmentalism and particularly climate was hijacked to achieve the
political goals of Maurice Strong, primarily to cause the demise of
industrialized nations. We saw how he established the political vehicle
the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the scientific
vehicle, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for his
purpose. He brought them together at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.
The fruits of his efforts and the policies they engendered are now
emerging and are hurting the poor and middle-income people of all
countries, with rising food and energy costs. They're hurting the people
they were ostensibly designed to help, but more on that later.

Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the
first three Reports, signaled the objectives were political and not
scientific. He said, "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."
The IPCC has done this with ruthless efficiency while pretending what
they are doing is science not politics. Houghton gave an example of a
disastrous statement when he announced "...the impacts of global warming
are like a weapon of mass destruction", which is followed by the claim
that it kills more people than terrorism. Trouble is more people die of
cold each year than heat. Also, notice the word "impact" because that,
not science, dominates the work of the IPCC. Two thirds of the people
involved in the IPCC (1900 of 2500) are not climate experts and study
what might happen, not will happen. So the entire process was
established to achieve the goal of announcing (potential) disasters.

Bert Bolin, who Al Gore credits with creating the IPCC, was Houghton's
co-chair. Bolin had a history of involvement in the politics of the
environment. Both he and Houghton signed the 1992 warning to humanity
essentially blaming the developed nations. It was more of the Club of
Rome approach with no clear measures or evidence, simply a list of
possible disasters if we didn't do things their way.

Science creates theories based on assumptions that are then tested by
other scientists performing as skeptics. The structure and mandate of
the IPCC was in direct contradiction to this scientific method. They
set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it. Maurice Strong and
his UN committees' objectives, especially the IPCC made sure the focus
was on human caused change and CO2 as the particular culprit. They'd
already biased the research by using a very narrow definition of climate
change in article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty produced at that infamous "Earth
Summit" in Rio in 1992. Climate Change was defined as "a change of
climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity
that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in
addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time
periods. This makes the human impact the primary purpose of the
research. The problem is you cannot determine that unless you know the
amount and cause of natural climate change.

Properly, a scientific definition would put natural climate variability
first, but at no point does the UN mandate require an advance of climate
science. The definition used by UNFCCC predetermined how the research
and results would be political and pre-determined the result. It made
discovering a clear 'human signal' mandatory, but meaningless. As noted
it thwarted the scientific method.

Other parts of their mandate illustrate the political nature of the
entire exercise. Its own principles require the IPCC "shall concentrate
its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive
Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as
on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."
(From Principles Governing IPCC work, approved at the 14th Session,
Vienna 1-3 October 1998 and amended at the 21st Session, Vienna 6-7
November, 2003.) The role is also to "...assess on a comprehensive,
objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and
socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral
with respect to policy..." The process has been anything but
"comprehensive, objective, open and transparent" as we will see later.
However, the cynicism of the last sentence was exposed when they made
the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) the most important part of IPCC
reports and these have been anything but 'neutral' as we will see.

The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the
claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither
a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in
politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in
Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900
in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study "Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability" and "Mitigation of Climate Change"
respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but
only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five
reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept
without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is
a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics
the work of the 1900 is listed as 'proof' of human caused global
warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible
authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.

The manipulation and politics didn't stop there. The Technical Reports
of the three Working Groups are set aside and another group prepares the
SPM. A few scientists prepare a first draft, which is then reviewed by
governments and a second draft is produced. Then a final report is
hammered out as a compromise between the scientists and the individual
government representatives. It is claimed the scientists set the final
summary content, but in reality governments set the form. The SPM is
then released at least three months before the science report. Most of
the scientists involved in the technical or science report see the
Summary for the first time when it is released to the public. The time
between its release to the public and the release of the Technical
Report is taken up with making sure it aligns with what the
politicians/scientists have concluded. Here is the instruction in the
IPCC procedures. "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial
changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall
be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for
Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter." Yes, you read that
correctly. This is like an Executive writing a summary and then having
employees write a report that agrees with the summary.

When you accept an hypothesis before it is proven you step on the
treadmill of maintaining the hypothesis. This leads to selective and
even biased research and publications. As evidence appears to show
problems with the hypothesis the natural tendency is to become more
virulent in defending the increasingly indefensible. This tendency is
underlined by John Maynard Keynes sardonic question; "If the facts
change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, Sir." The IPCC and those
who were chosen or chose to participate were locked in to a conclusion
by the rules, regulations and procedures carefully crafted by Maurice
Strong. These predetermined the outcome - a situation in complete
contradiction to the objectives and methods of science.

As evidence grew that the hypothesis was scientifically unsupportable
adherents began defending rather than accepting and adjusting. The
trail they made is marked by the search for a clear human signal,
identified in modern parlance as 'smoking guns.' They also became
trapped in what Russian writer and philosopher Leo Tolstoi identified
many years ago, namely, "I know that most men, including those at ease
with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the
simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to
admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to
colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they
have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Next we
will examine how the political system that Strong and the UN set up
allowed perpetuation of incorrect science and falsely identified smoking
guns.
--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

"Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it
is very important in politics." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of the
Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor Of
Climatology, University of Winnipeg



.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT-"Global Warming" Hoaxers Exposed!
    ... The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. ... IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers, are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming. ... This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT-"Global Warming" Hoaxers Exposed!
    ... The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. ... IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers, are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming. ... This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT-"Global Warming" Hoaxers Exposed!
    ... The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. ... IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers, are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming. ... This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Global Warming claims - the domino are falling.
    ... But these are _scientists_ and scientists ... "The overwhelming majority of scientists (believe in man-made climate ... given that our contribution to climate change is so small that some scientists ... "Then, of course, the media privilege foolish contrarian views because they ...
    (uk.local.cumbria)
  • Re: OT-"Global Warming" Hoaxers Exposed!
    ... The most important document in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Second Assessment Report, which was published under the auspices of the United Nations in 1996. ... IPCC assessment reports, and particularly their Summaries for Policymakers, are noted for their selective use of information and their bias to support the political goal of control of fossil fuels in order to fight an alleged anthropogenic global warming. ... This ambiguous phrase suggests a group of climate scientists, examining both human and natural influences on climate change, looking at published scientific research, and carefully weighing their decision. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)