That the findings of six years’ research would be subject to “negotiation” between the scientists who did the research and the political functionaries who pay for it seemed odd, signaling alteration for political purposes, assuming that the scientists knew what they thought their report should say before they got to the meeting.
Thanks to pre-negotiation leaks, two key findings were widely known weeks ago: 1) The IPCC now thinks human activity accounts for roughly half of the late 20th-century warming, and 2) the computer models on which all global warming predictions depend can’t explain why there’s been no statistically meaningful warming for at least 15 years.
Climatologist Judith Curry, who chairs the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, did the hard work of combing the “negotiated” document to find what became of those two points. And Lo! They’ve morphed into tortured language designed to suggest the computer models are spot on, and whatever warming scientists believe they’ve measured was almost certainly caused by humans. (Her 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are the new language; the 5th and 6th are what they replaced.)
Curry, who recently labeled “incomprehensible” the IPCC’s procedures in massaging its reports, has come increasingly under attack from global warming profiteers since professional honesty began moving her to ask too many questions a few years ago.
We can hope the transparently politicized result of last week’s “negotiations” will hasten the day when the only question that matters is how much longer we tolerate this ragged excuse for expansionist government and its parasitic green energy boondoggles.