[ RadSafe ] Science & Politics. 15 May 2015

Maury 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 [80] 
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 [81] 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 mailing list