The reason for the change in working groups is to put it out in such a way so no one can pin anything dfown. For instance a 'will' would probably be changed to a 'could' to create effective deniability. I see already they are raising their 'confidence level' which means absolutely nothing to sane people.
This is a PR stunt. Pure and simple.
The accepted Final Draft of the full Working Group I report, comprising the Technical Summary, 14 Chapters and three Annexes, will be released online in unedited form, together with the approved Summary for Policymakers on Monday 30 September.
What exactly is your complaint?
Out of all of this that you just posted, how did you arrive at your conclusion that the edits of the working group reports is only to reflect what the summary says? You are absolutely clueless as to how the process works ...... or you hope that everyone else is.
Ask Exxon/Mobil about this. Exxon/Mobil has a member of its corporation that is actually a part of the IPCC report review process. Do you not think that it is in Exxon/Mobil's best interest to quickly expose any fraud and/or improper manipulation of the papers if they could show that any such malpractice was evident? Dow Chemicals also has a member of its corporation involved in the review process.
Did you seriously think that the review process was conducted behind closed and locked doors by a group of mad scientists striving for their world dominance? Science that would become evident through present and future observations? No, I do not believe that this is what you think. I do believe that this is what you want all others to think. ... Would you care to discuss the actual science behind the AGWT or are you still having emotional withdrawals from the fact that you are incapable of doing so?
This person doesn't think so: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/2...
Even better yet, read the anonymous answers from people who participated in the last IPCC report. For example:
"This is an awful procedure and should be changed. It has far too much politics and the final version has little relation to the one suggested by the scientists… (p. 139)" http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.ne...
Wait, it gets even better. The InterAcademy Council did a full and thorough review of the IPCC processes and procedures. It was not pretty. Here is their very softly worded critique of the process for coming up with the SPM:
"Expediting approval of the Summary for Policymakers. The final languageof the Summary for Policymakers is negotiated, line by line, between scientists and government representatives in a grueling Plenary session that lasts several days, usually culminating in an all-night meeting. Scientists and government representatives who responded to the Committee’s questionnaire suggested changes to reduce opportunities for political interference with the scientific results and to improve the efficiency of the approval process." http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.ne...
Opportunities for political interference....Who have thunk it? I wonder what they're up to right now?
_______________________________________...
@Some1Has: "Did you seriously think that the review process was conducted behind closed and locked doors by a group of mad scientists striving for their world dominance?"
Close. Perhaps substitute "politicians" for "scientists" and "UN bureaucracy, power and mo money" for "world dominance" and you might have something.
What a great source this is : http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/2...
A series of anonymous comments on IPCC . How did they actually verify they were genuine anonymous comments rather than fictitious anonymous comments?
No.
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
Overall yes, but it is of course necessary to know what policies you are referring to They are certainly 1000% more valid than the policies of NIPCC
I don't think it's possible to say. There's SO much politics in the issue now the matters of science appear to be tertiary. 1 thing is for certain. Anyone... let me say that again.. ANYONE... who says that a matter is ever settled in science doesn't have a clue what science is. Certainty exists only in pure mathematics.
It is a great huge bureaucratic mess, with so many papers, so many people, so many influences, It is much to complicated and bound to fail.
Its a tax plan thats all it is .
The Working Group reports were drafted by Lead Authors, and Chapter Lead Authors, which were sent to Expert Reviewers who made comments, and the process was repeated a few times through various drafts. Then a Summary For Policymakers is being written, with comments and changes from participating government delegations.
This summary will be reported soon.
The working group papers:
“Following copy-editing, layout, final checks for errors, and adjustments for changes for consistency with the Summary for Policymakers, it will be published online in January 2014.”
Is it appropriate to change the working group reports to be consistent with the summary, rather than the other way around, especially with no reviews from expert reviewers?
