What many suspected for a long time when they couldn't replicate Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) results, and could not access the IPCC-used data, seems to be true based on the “leaked emails.” Below is an excerpt from Climate Change Facts (one of a handful of sites that actually provides pros AND cons) and it sheds light on how facts can get distorted. Bear with me, it’s worth the read.
“Few scientists are actually involved in writing the materials, perhaps a few dozen. Usually there is one real leader, a chair or co-chair and 2 or 3 [so-called] co-chairs that are present to provide balance for the developing nations. Because of skill or language barriers they may not be greatly involved. Lead authors are usually involved in just one piece of the section or chapter. These few people…prepare the first and subsequent drafts and the Executive Summary that feeds into the “Summary For Policy Makers”, long before the draft chapters have been through national reviews. Even here, the co-chairs decide which inputs are to be accepted, or make recommendations that usually are sustained, during [mandatory] sessions. Yes, thousands of scientists review the IPCC documents, but usually [they read] only those parts that impinge on their own expertise, which is usually quite narrow.“
If you’ve ever played the childhood game called “tell-a-friend” in which one kid whispers a sentence in another kid’s ear and that kid goes to the next kid, and so on --- at the end of the game, the last kid says the sentence and finds out its nothing like the first sentence. That seems to be exactly what happens in these summary reports. And that explains why we have people who are adamant they know “the truth.”Essentially what the policy makers read becomes vague and distorted which then becomes subject to their own interpretation or perception. It’s no wonder we’re all confused.
Gwen Kautz, Customer Service Manager
Dawson Public Power District
No comments:
Post a Comment