This admission by an IPCC lead author in the UK’s Guardian is simply stunning:

“The Nobel prize was for peace not science … government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,” said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. “For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of something else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists.”

Think about this for a moment. Now the IPCC insiders are admitting they cannot ‘settle the science’ because they don’t do science and most of their ‘message’ is crafted by policy makers (with agendas of course). No wonder the latest IPCC report is full of junk science made from political organization press releases. No wonder Mann and Jones were really in the business of creating images of global warming (by hiding tree-ring declines and hiding details in ice cores) instead of doing real science.

Finally the IPCC has come clean  – it doesn’t do science, it does political propaganda.  Someone alert the EPA!

Update: An accompanying article in the Guardians extensive series on the IPCC and Climategate has supporting evidence of this claim via the story of one Ben Santer:

Wearing his other hat as IPCC author, Santer was also widely accused of being the man who added the key words “discernible human influence” to the body of the IPCC report, and of doing it very late in the day. True enough. This was messy and does not reflect well on the IPCC. Those words were agreed at a main session of the IPCC in late 1995, attended by politicians. They wanted them included in the report’s summary for policy-makers. But they went beyond what was said in the chapter from which the summary was supposedly drawn.

Yet IPCC procedure required that the chapters had to be made consistent with the summary, rather than vice versa. This is because the ultimate authors of the “intergovernmental” reports are the governments that approve the summary for policy makers. But such a rule puts the scientists in a difficult position, and Santer had the unenviable job of rewording his chapter to reflect the wording of the political summary. And of ensuring that all the authors were in agreement.

Clearly the propaganda goals were influencing and over riding the scientific conclusions in the IPCC reports since the beginning (this was 1995).  So the statement above is valid. The IPCC produces political propaganda under the fraudulent guise of supposed science.

I may actually have some sympathy for the scientists who were duped (or bribed) into becoming little more than stage props for these political hacks in the IPCC. Except the fact is these ‘scientists’ should have seen that there work was being manipulated and used under false premises. This should be the end of the IPCC and the AGW chicken littles.

Update: Powerline exposes more junk science from the scientifically challenged liberal media:

Here’s what puzzles me, though: isn’t global warming supposed to be–you know–global? That being the case, why are moose populations “burgeoning” in Massachusetts, returning to Wisconsin, “growing” in Michigan, moving intoConnecticut, where historically they did not live, “booming” in Oregon, “resurging” in Vermont, “increasing” in Washington,“growing exponentially” in New York, “significantly increas[ing]” in Colorado, and “growing” in Utah?

I have no idea whether Minnesota’s moose population is declining, or if so, why. Moose are subject to a variety of diseases, and wildlife populations constantly fluctuate for reasons that are often unclear. I’m pretty sure, though, that if the culprit were global warming the syndrome wouldn’t stop at the state’s boundaries.

We’ve all gotten used to inept news coverage, but I don’t believe we’ve seen anything as brainless as the liberal press’s devotion to global warming.

’nuff said.

Update: H/T to Bookworm for this excellent review of the IPCC by S Fred Singer at AT– a great read once the above context is factored in!

Tags: EPA, Global Warming, IPCC