This Is Called Cheating (Part 2)

“Months before authors were even selected to write an upcoming IPCC report, its chairman was telling a live audience what conclusion that report would reach.”

Here’s what he told a live audience in New York:
When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’ [NoFrakkingConsensus.com]

6 responses to “This Is Called Cheating (Part 2)

  1. Surprise, SURPRISE!!! The IPCC makeup stuff YEARS before the “study” is done; I am shocked, shocked, I say!

  2. Chairperson of California Air Resources Board said that she did not need the report in question as she knew the answer!

  3. If the IPCC were a scientific body, it wouldn’t be headed by a railroad engineer. And remember back when the IPCC said that ‘gray literature’ would be deemed acceptable input for its next report? If the OMG claim above came from a Greenpeace recruiting pamphlet, that would be good enough. It’s laudable to try to hold the IPCC to a scientific standard, but they’ve abandoned all pretense a long time ago.

  4. This is not called cheating. This is called continuing your subsidies, income and power. The more reality challenges it the more frenetic they become. These folks are telling us that they can control the climate and no one seems to challenge that. As far as predictions, Robert Frost did them with more class.
    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

  5. This reminds me of the WHO, who published their irrefutable conclusions that secondary smoking was harmful, before reading the results of the study, which they refused to publish, but released by the scientists. It concluded, passive smoking was harmless, but the children of smokers appeared to gain partial immunity from lung cancer. As an ex-smoker who disapproves of the draconian way in which smokers are being treated, I can see a clear pattern of government polices emerging. Like wind ans solar panels, they exagerate the benefits and ignore and disparage ant scientific evidence that contradicts their policy.

  6. “Studies prove what we want them to prove, nothing more, nothing less.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s