The IPCC is re-wording the glossary definitions of six key terms before releasing the official version of this latest report
Two weeks ago, the media announced the arrival of a new report prepared by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But that 1,200-page document still hasn’t been officially released. Instead, journalists have been relying on a 34-page Summary for Policymakers – which is actually one the strangest documents you’ll ever encounter. Normally, after someone writes a report, they write a summary that strives to accurately represent it. After making both the report and the summary public, they move on. Not the IPCC. Its website tells us 16 pages worth of changes are now being made to the underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to “ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers.” Astonishingly, at this eleventh hour, the definitions of key terms are being altered. The authors – whom the BBC recently described as “top scientists from around the world” – had defined ‘global warming’ in a particular manner.
Changes made to 'scientific' report: "It appears immediately evident that an explicit assumption has been embedded into it despite the fact that the scientists themselves chose not to go there."
The UN IPCC "should never be mistaken for a scientific body."
Science: "They argued that three consecutive years of tick outbreaks “arguably reflects a host-parasite relationship strongly influenced by climate change"
NYT: The moose-tracking exploits of Dr. Pekins and his colleagues were published last month in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. They argued that three consecutive years of tick outbreaks “arguably reflects a host-parasite relationship strongly influenced by climate change at the southern fringe of moose habitat.”
“You need a lot of moose on the landscape to have a lot of parasites,” Dr. Pekins said. “That’s the host-parasite relationship.” That relationship was more or less in balance until the changing climate tilted the scales in the ticks’ favor. Over the long term, Dr. Pekins doesn’t expect the moose to die off completely, but there will be fewer of them.
Ben Pile: The UN IPCC 'is driven by a political agenda, not a scientific one...The IPCC was asked to consider the 1.5°C target, not because a new scientific understanding demanded it, but because of the need for a new dose of urgency.'
'In 2014, the summary for policymakers warned that climate change can increase the risks of conflict and migration. But this was totally unsupported by the technical parts of the document.'
"Every IPCC report has been the ‘final call’. Every UNFCCC meeting has been the ‘last chance’. Countless climate deadlines have passed but arctic ice still exists. The polar bears still exist. And most frustratingly of all for these environmentalists, the world’s human population is doing better than ever before. It is not the IPCC’s science that appeals to these vapid hacks – it is the cover it provides for their profoundly undemocratic impulses."