It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1st Co Chair of IPCC admits politics rules not science

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming



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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



Also Sir John Houghton admits that


Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics.


Out of 2500 reviewers used by the IPCC only 5 actually reviewed all 11 Chapters of the report. Even then the final report given to the public is not even this review.



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.


I get the feeling we are watching the worlds greatest fraud being unveiled before us...




posted on May, 1 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   
It is essential that pressure against these villains is maintained until they, along with the organisations they created for themselves are cast aside, since they made it very clear that their only raison d'etre is destroying the wealth and freedom of an arbitrarily chosen group of people and nations for their own aggrandizement. it's very much a possibilty that they release tidbits like the one you posted just to keep people talking about something new, while the loot is secured by these self-anointed elites.

the real beeuty in all of this is that many alledgedly good-wille dinstitutions have revelaed their true colors, the Nobel Prize committe, for example has had its reputation tarnished forever, which is a good thing, because we don't need people who are trying to play king (or god), much less in positions of relative power and public reach.


this is (should be) a watershed moment in science, because, for the most part, they failed to remain independent and truthful in the face of overwhelming prevailing influence by an activist movement capable of subverting nations and setting up 'supranational' organisations whose only real agenda is essentially destroying us.

for the link

PS: the same applies to world bank, imf, wto etc, too of course even though these entities subscribe to an 'economical' as opposed to 'scientific' paradigm or merchandise.

the essence and motivation of these movements appears to be purely religious, 'science' and 'economy' being substituted for more traditional god-forces.



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Oh my goodness!!!!
Gee's - I thnk most "thinking" people have known this since the beginning.
No suprises there.
As time goes on and more evidence accumulates the more people will see through the lies and deceipt.

Bring it on -- it about time!



posted on May, 23 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


no surprise, but no real relief either.

too many crazed err, enthusiasts (you people ought to be grateful for the T&C) still clinging to the bandwagon and too many racketeers are still agressively marketing the cause.

take the money out for a week and everything will turn out fine

/wishful thinking



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by greenfruit
 


Greetings from a fellow kiwi
, it is a shame that this thread hasn't had more discussion. I've only recently started seriously investigating AGW (or lack thereof) and have started my own thread here regarding the UN pushing global warming for their own agenda.

It is truly coming to light now. But will enough people wake up before our governments sign us up to the new 'kyoto' treaty in copenhagen this Chrismas? Even if enough people know, I fear that there is too much $$$ vested in 'climate change' to have things turn around now. I know I'm doing my best to inform people I know. But it's hard when people either think 'its just some crazy conspiracy' or 'theres nothing I can do about it, so why bother'. We can only try.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well we know the last IPCC report was a consensus since political pressure determined that some projections had to be 'toned down' .....



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 

How does that in any way make it a consensus? They "toned down" the politicans fear mongering, into a more easily accepted report? There are far, far more credible scientists willing to stand up on their own to denounce the falsitities and misrepresentations of AGW. For instance, over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that Man is causing global warming with over 9,000 PhD's.


Its president, Arthur Robinson, said: "If this many American scientists will sign this petition, you certainly can’t continue to contend that there is a consensus on this subject."

Source

What do some IPCC reviewers have to say?



Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.


This is from Chris Landsea's open letter to the community here. And he is certainly not the only member of the IPCC to leave due to the focus on politics, as opposed to science within the IPCC.

Here is a link to Dr Vincent Gray's (who is a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception) letter to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. In it, he states:

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.


Also Nils-Axel Mörner, regarding sea level change.



A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.

The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.

Source

And this is the organization that most governments are basing their climate change policy on?? Isn't it obvious that there is something seriously wrong with that?!

"The science is settled" and "Consensus" is nothing more than a catch phrase for politicians to shout out to think there actually is one. The IPCC was NEVER about the science.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by greenfruit
 


No big suprise since politics rule in practically every human gathering. Including science....



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join