The book concentrated on exposing the deception underpinning the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with regard to its claim that only the most expert, peer reviewed science underpins those reports. Donna cited numerous examples which showed that quite a few lead authors of IPCC reports were youthful graduate students, still working on their doctorates, while many others had strong links to environmental activist groups such as The World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace.
This lack of peer reviewed science and the shonky reports should be kept in mind by Australia's delegates to COP21 in Paris starting next month. Let your local member know that you do not want Australia to sign anything; you do not want our delegation to sign away Australia's sovereignty.
Another timely reminder of the flaws in the IPCC's science comes from Tony Thomas on Quadrant Online with a piece headed:
As climateers turn their gaze toward Paris, what the warmist media won't be reporting is just how poorly qualified and error-prone many of them are. That's no mere sceptic's complaint, by the way, but the honest verdict of their fellow scientists. The basis for the Paris climate talks in December is “the science” produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The science must be good because it’s coming from the world’s top climate-type scientists, or so the story goes.
Well, the story is guff.
The IPCC scientists aren’t the best available, far from it. They’re a motley crew assembled via a typical United Nations boondoggle that stacks the scientific ranks with heavy quotas for Third Worlders, along with special consideration for females.
The IPCC rules explain that the IPCC hierarchy “shall reflect balanced geographical representation with due consideration for scientific and technical requirements.” (My emphasis).
The senior scientists draft the all-important Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs), as distinct from their thousands of back-up pages of science studies. Then politicians and bureaucrats, not the scientists, sculpt the wording on the final drafts, including the Synthesis Report.
Yes, the Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) is reviewed line by line, not by scientists, but by politicians and bureaucrats. This may not agree with the scientific papers that are meant to support the reports. So politicians and bureaucrats (and the Main Stream Media) rely not on scientific reports but on a Summary prepared by....er......politicians and bureaucrats.
.....government delegates of the UN member states, in secret sessions, go over the scientists’ draft Summaries for Policymakers line by line and word by word. A reasonable analogy would be a cloud of seagulls descending on the scientists’ packet of chips. The cleansing, massaging and deleting continues until every bureaucrat, diplomat and politician is in agreement about things like the required apocalyptic tone.Tony Thomas points out:
The best example of Summaries’ propaganda is that, while their 2013 forecasting of CO2 doom is climate-model based, no Summary includes the all-important admission from Working Group 1’s body text: that 111 of 114 model runs had over-forecasted actual temperature rises from 1998-2012.
For Australia's sake, contact your local MP and beseech them not to let our COP21 Delegates waste money on the Green Climate Fund based on shonky science; and definitely not to sign away Australia's sovereignty on World Government.