Ive here. At the time of the 2007 IPCC report, Western media did report on how China downplayed the report, but beyond that, the authoritative media paid little attention to the depth of political influence on the final report, especially GHG emissions-benefits.

Thomas Newberg.Originally Posted in spy of god

In a recent article (“The Ironic World: Will Climate Hope Encourage Climate Inaction?“), I wrote:

Contrary to most people’s (understandable) beliefs, the climate crisis in its early stages is here now. (This belief — which is wrong — is understandable, since the rich world and its media are doing everything possible to delay the majority of people from fully realizing the crisis they now face.)

Other commenters are scarier than the stoic (and government-funded) IPCC.

However, as we have seen, no one takes any action and no one has any real power, which makes the almost overwhelming situation worse.

I would like to expand the middle sentence, specifically the sentence “stoic (and government-funded) IPCC”.

People are unaware of the fact that, although it is almost by definition true, because the IPCC is a united nations organization, it must be financed and controlled by the government that finances and controls the UN itself. (I emphasize below.)

This Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a United Nations intergovernmental agency Responsible for advancing knowledge about anthropogenic climate change.[1][2][3][4] It was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.[5] Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, It consists of 195 member states.[6][7]

While it “provides objective and comprehensive scientific information on anthropogenic climate change” and “does not conduct original research or monitor climate change, but conduct regular, systematic reviews of all relevant published literature”, it must analyze and explain these documents, and interpret it accordingly.

Thousands of scientists and other experts voluntarily review data and compile key findings into “assessment reports” for use by policymakers and the public[.]

These assessment reports – latest, AR6 or Sixth Assessment Report, released in stages this year – including a plethora of books delivered by its three working groups and a “synthesis report” covering the entire edition. (You can find the latest assessment report here).

The overall synthesis report (“SYN” in the jargon) itself is quite long – AR5’s 2015 synthesis report was 169 pages – which makes four tomes scary to read together. It would take quite a while to just read the synthesis of these assessment reports, let alone the whole thing.

For this reason, an integrated report is a summary, itself summarised in its opening chapter, called a “Summary for Policymakers” (“SPM” in jargon). Below you will find the first page of the AR5 Synthesis Report.

AR5’s SPM has only 30 pages of content – you can easily read it before the champagne section of your private jet from LA to Wall Street, for example, or before you have to be interviewed by a big media reporter who probably only read SPM herself , and then probably just before interviewing you.

Due to their importance, the various SPMs can always be downloaded separately.This is SPM For those wishing to peruse it, the AR5 roundup.This Comprehensive report for AR6 and its SPM will be this autumn.

(Each working group report is about the same level. Each report consists of a large full report, a technical summary, and its own summary for policymakers. For the just released AR6 Working Group 1 report, the entire report has 1300 pages, 150 pages for technical summaries, and less than 40 pages for SPM.)

Oil control government concerns report is downplayed

Why go through all this? Because these two facts are put together…

• The UN and IPCC are controlled by governments around the world
• The SPM of any IPCC assessment report is the only page read by non-scientists

…means that “finalizing” the meetings of the SPM chapters in particular, and the synthesis report in general, is the real battle. And political. Representatives of oil-controlling governments (like Saudi Arabia) and oil-controlling governments (like the U.S.) are in the room, fighting every nuance of every word, trying to keep oil and gas — the burning carbon — as the world’s primary energy source. Energy, even carbon will burn us all.

real climate review

Such fights are rarely reported, but sometimes they do.Here is a small sample of the priceless George Monbiot AR4 SPM Process:

real climate review

Drafting the report by the world’s preeminent panel of climate scientists is an odd process. For months, scientists who contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have debated the evidence. Nothing will be published unless consensus is reached. That means the panel’s report is very conservative — even timid. It also means they are as trustworthy as scientific documents.

Then, Politicians swept in when scientists solved all the problems and seek to remove any content that threatens their interests from the summary.although The U.S. government has historically been the main opponent of scientiststhe offensive was led by Saudi Arabia and supported by China and Russia (1,2).

Scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. For example, the report released on Friday did not warn that “North America is expected to suffer severe local economic damage, as well as severe ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change-related events” (3). David Wasdell, the panel’s accredited reviewer, claims, Most references to ‘positive feedback’ removed from IPCC’s February Science Abstract: Climate change is accelerating itself(4).

This is the opposite of a story that the right-wing media keeps repeating: the IPCC colluded with the government to conspire to exaggerate science. No one has explained why the government should try to amplify its own failures. In the quirky world of climate conspiracy theorists, no explanation is needed. The world’s most conservative scientific establishment has somehow become a bunch of screaming demagogues.

from the bottom David Wasdell reports:

This IPCC WG1’s charter has conflicts of interest in its structure, making it subject to accusations of collusion in the management of scientific analysis of climate changeNot surprisingly, the resulting summary for policymakers was immediately welcomed by the Washington government and confirmed as acceptable. Now, denial has given way when it comes to the reality of climate change and its attribution to human causes. It has turned to denying amplified feedbacks, accelerating climate change, nonlinearities in system behavior and underlying feedback-driven instability.

The result is a document that lays the necessary but far from sufficient foundation for developing strategic policy. Despite the best efforts of the global scientific community, the pursuit of goals according to this report may contribute to the continued profitability of hydrocarbon-based industries, but they fall short of their overarching goals in their mission to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Elsewhere, regarding one of the AR5 SPMs, Wasdell writes (as in lead Guardian):

“The greatest pressure to lay the groundwork for the highest possible budgets comes from those countries whose national economies, political power and social stability depend on maintaining the value of assets and production incomes derived from the extraction of fossil energy resources. These individuals impose additional on political agents pressure Continued profitability of vested interests is based on the extraction, refining, marketing and use of fossil energy as the foundation of the global economy. “

That Guardian article was headlined “IPCC report ‘dilutes’ under ‘political pressure’ to protect fossil fuel interests“. Worth a try.

The “vested interests” of the global economy control this process, even within the IPCC. They control not only what is said in the abstract, but also what is clearly and clearly expressed.

India and China force cancellation of ‘coal phase-out’ in IPCC deal

All this makes stories like below Both conspicuous and inconspicuous, in “everything new is old“Somehow. That’s what happened at the end of last year’s COP26 international climate conference in Glasgow. (“COP” means “Conference of the Parties”, and 195 member states control the process. It’s an intergovernmental Principals meeting.)

COP26 President holds back tears as summit ends

Glasgow Climate Pact gives little hope of a 1.5.

COP26 president Alok Sharma held back tears as he accepted India’s last-minute motion to weaken the summit’s pledge to “phase out” coal. Sharma has been saying for months that he hopes COP26 will “make coal history”. Until India insisted not to do so at the 11th hour, it looked like the summit might accomplish this scientifically urgent task.

but UN climate talks operate by consensus: each of 197 participating countries can veto a majorityIn fact, India – backed by China – has threatened to block the deal entirely if the goal is not changed from “phasing out” coal to “phasing out” coal.

India and China killed coal because they wanted to and because they could. They think it’s in their interest, even if it’s not in anyone’s interest at all.

What will this bring us?

The work of the IPCC is necessary. It is important to publish these reports. It’s important to understand the ongoing (and increasingly scary) science.

This is why the United Nations matters no Be the guardian and owner of the preferred reports it publishes.Because the owners of the United Nations want to make sure that these reports are no Understood. They are succeeding.

That leaves us with this: it doesn’t seem like anything will happen until anything that might happen doesn’t matter.After that, the sickly rich will have to find Another way to rule the worldthis time collapse one. We’re going to have to live in it. Just because we can’t see that world today — or even see it coming — doesn’t mean it doesn’t breathe its frozen breath on all of our faces like the giant iceberg of the Titanic.