[ RadSafe ] Science & Politics. 15 May 2015
maurysis at peoplepc.com
Fri May 15 22:11:20 CDT 2015
Regardless of your particular scientific or technological discipline, I
hope the discussion below will prove interesting and useful to you. I
thought it especially relevant to conflicts about the nature of science.
Maury&Dog (MaurySiskel maurysis at peoplepc.com)
Follows a well done essay on distinctions between science and politics.
The context is the organization (in 1988) and functions of the UN, the
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the Working Groups of
the IPCC, the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the World Meteorological
Organization, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). An
early individual organizer was Maurice Strong.
*"Truth Number 22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific
organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy
makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations,
politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the
representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure
The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists
almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a
majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green
[Poitou & Bréon] The persons who decide the redaction of the Summary for
Policy Makers are the scientists who have led the writing of the big
report and representative of the states. Nothing can be written in the
summary if scientists don’t agree.
There we would like examples of topics of the SPM that would not be in
accordance with the complete report written by the scientists
To dispel the statements by P&B it’s sufficient to read the submission
by Donna Laframboise, investigative journalist, Canada titled: The
Lipstick on the Pig: Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, submission to Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, UK
Parliament hyperlinked and footnoted version December 10, 2013:
Let’s quote the conclusion of this submission:
“The IPCC was not established – and is not controlled – by science
academies. Rather, it is a child of one of the most politically driven
bodies known to humanity, the United Nations.
As a UN entity, the IPCC’s primary purpose isn’t to further scientific
knowledge but to provide scientific justification for another UN entity
– the 1992 treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Evidence of this is in plain sight. At a 2008 event celebrating the
IPCC’s 20th anniversary, chairman Pachauri told a group of IPCC
insiders: “The UNFCCC is our main customer.”
Similarly a 2011 presentation by vice chair van Ypersele ends this way:
“Conclusion: IPCC is eager to continue serving the UNFCCC process.”
An international treaty is a political instrument. This makes it
impossible for any reasonable person to conclude that the IPCC is about
science for science sake.
This is science for politics sake.”
The submission by Donna Laframboise shows as well how the schedule and
the wording of the reports are ordered and very tightly controlled by
IPCC bureaucracy; let’s quote from the paragraph INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
of the submission by Donna Laframboise:
“IPCC authors spent years writing the 14 chapters that comprise AR5’s
Working Group 1 report. Sixty-five of those authors were then selected
(by the bureaucracy) to write a précis. Needless to say, reducing 14
chapters of material to 31 pages involves a great deal of fallible human
If the IPCC was even a facsimile of a scientific body, matters would
have ended there. The 31-page précis – called the Summary for
Policymakers – would have been released to the public. But that’s not
what happened. Instead, those 31 pages were merely a draft. The final
version of the document only emerged after a four-day meeting in which
the political significance of every sentence had been thoroughly dissected.
Delegations from more than 100 countries were involved in the four-day,
behind-closed-doors, barred-to the-media meeting. Politicians,
diplomats, and bureaucrats argued about phrasing – and about which
tables, graphs, and illustrations should be included. When they were
done, the Summary for Policymakers was five pages longer than the draft
but contained 700 fewer words.
At a press conference in late September 2013, the IPCC released its new
improved version of the summary. This is the only AR5 document most
policymakers and journalists are ever likely to read. Rather than being
the unadorned words of IPCC scientists, this statement reflects a
politically-negotiated view of reality.
Shortly afterward, the IPCC released a document titled Changes to the
Underlying Scientific/Technical Assessment. It includes 10 pages of
“corrections” the IPCC intends to make to AR5’s first 14 chapters.
Turning normal procedure on its head, the IPCC doesn’t expect its
summary to be consistent with the underlying report. Rather, this
organization has a long history of adjusting its reports so that they
accord with its politically-negotiated summaries.
In the words of the first paragraph of this document, IPCC personnel
“have identified some changes to the underlying report to ensure
consistency with the language used in the approved Summary for
Policymakers” (italics added).
Directly following this quote, we are assured that these changes “do not
alter any substantive findings.” Since these are the same people who
insist the IPCC is a scientific body, that it writes objective reports,
and is “never policy-prescriptive,” such a claim should be taken with a
grain of salt. “
An in depth analysis of the true nature of the IPCC, showing it is a
highly political body pretending to be a scientific group of experts, is
to be found in Drieu Godefridi’s book LE GIEC EST MORT, vive la science!
(Texquis, 2010) (http://giec-est-mort.com/) and in its conference 
at the Académie Royale.
Science is trying to describe the reality while a norm -- moral or legal
-- says what should be allowed or forbidden.
Scientism  pretends to deduce logically the norm from the science:
it’s a blunder in reasoning as a norm or law expresses value judgments,
not scientific facts.
If IPCC WG1 Working Group 1) report looks “scientific” (despite being
based on shameless distortions of facts and on a fancy pseudo-physics as
shown by the discussion of the truths no.1 to no. 21), WG2 and WG3
reports are based on value-judgements, culminating in the WG3 list of
recommended norms and regulations that every state must endorse and
As all and every human activity even walking outside or growing
vegetables produces either carbon dioxide or some of the other
“greenhouse gases” (a very long list from laughing gas N2O to methane),
all and every human activity is in the scope of IPCC.
WG3’s proposal disguised as “science” is for “rich countries” to transit
to negative growth and to decline and misery, and for “poor countries”
to limit their growth while getting hundreds billions of dollars
transferred from the “rich” countries via international agencies
managing “green funds”.
“Rich countries” should learn, as told by IPCC WG3, to disconnect
economic growth and the feeling of well-being, mankind must learn that
there are non-human values, etc.
This is not a balanced “scientific assessment” but a very radical
political agenda reflecting all of the dangerous and homicidal fantasies
of the “deep ecology”, published since the well known reports of the
club of Rome and its satellites and promoted by some well known pressure
groups and non-governmental organizations.
The fake “global warming science” (models, forcings, etc.) of WG1 is a
smoke screen used to justify to the very long list of policy
prescriptions, norms and regulations of WG3. As policy prescriptions are
not science but politics, IPCC is a political body.
More information about the RadSafe