Dr. Philip Lloyd, a coordinating co-author of climate change documents for the U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently revealed how flawed the process is for reaching accurate conclusions on “climate change” or “global warming.”
The IPCC has routinely used statistics from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia as well as from other sources, to compile its alarming statistics on climate change. Hundreds of emails from insiders at the CRU and climate change activists around the world were posted on the Internet in November. These emails reveal that climate change scientists deliberately hid evidence of global cooling; faked statistics and suppressed the writings of scientists who were critical of global warming alarmism.
Now, Dr. Lloyd describes how flawed the process is at the IPCC for gathering and evaluating climate change statistics. According to Lloyd:
I was a coordinating lead author [on the IPCC], but it gives me no mantle of infallibility. Instead, it gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.
The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists' work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinized by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.
However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticizing our drafts, and finally meeting with all us coordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draft fest.
The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.
The second problem is that the technical publication is not completed by the time the IPCC reports. Instead, it produces a Summary for Policy Makers. Writing the summary involves the co-ordinators, the reviewers and the IPCC functionaries as before, and also various chairmen.
The summary goes out in a blaze of publicity, but there is no means of checking whether it represents what the scientists actually said, because the scientific report isn’t published for another four months or more.
In the Fourth Assessment, the summary was quietly replaced several months after it was first published because some scientists who were involved complained of misrepresentation.
***
The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.
Read in its entirety, Dr. Lloyd’s analysis is a damning indictment of the IPCC as a scientific body. In recent weeks, the world has learned that climate scientists have faked and suppressed data; now, we learn that the process at the IPCC for determining what gets published is non-scientific and flawed.
Lisa Jackson, director of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently declared carbon dioxide to be a harmful pollutant – based on climate scientist alarmist statistics. Our entire economy is in jeopardy of being destroyed, based on lies from climate alarmists.
Additional Resources:
EPA Carbon Decision Will Destroy American Economy
Business Day - End ‘authority’ on climate change
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/14/climategate-this-cant-help
