Source

At Junk Science dot com, some of the disturbing parts about the IPCC’s publishing the conclusions first and coming up with the data three months later:

• First, we have this dictator-type order: “PLEASE DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE THE DRAFT REPORT”
• Then we have “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

This boils down to; a) we dictate that you’re not allowed to read the scientific evidence or analyze it, and b) you must force your research to conform to the party line.

Melanie Phillips points out more about the scientific draft, which is an illustration of political correctness having crept into science; there are some things that are unacceptable if your research produces the ‘wrong’ conclusion. You are expected to bend your models in order to produce the ‘correct’ results.

It appears that the IPCC intends to make the scientists falsify the science.*snip*

Let’s pause for a second. The IPCC has said that the authors of the scientific papers will have to change their findings if they depart from the summary in order to bring them into line with it. In other words, research which apparently shows that the panic over man-made global warming is exaggerated misleading and wrong is to be altered to support the summary’s view that man-made global warming is even worse than previously thought.

Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl wrote this in protest:

These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won’t fix it. Instead, they will ‘adjust’ the technical report so that it looks consistent.

This just goes to prove that they are afraid of REAL science, but what is appalling is their cavalier attitude toward what Melanie accurately refers to as ‘doctoring the evidence’. This isn’t science, this is manipulation of the data, forcing a preconceived notion or conclusion into the models to achieve the desired result. It is obvious to most that this isn’t the way that REAL science works. We’re just not that stupid to accept it! The fact that this is all coming from the illustrious organization that brought us the Oil For Food program shouldn’t be surprising; but the fact that the media and the wacko environmentalists are fully expecting us to accept this is despicable and shameful. The UN is an organization that we shouldn’t belong to, bottom line. We shouldn’t be feeding into a green ideology that as Jacques Chirac put it, is about ‘building world government’.

In REAL science, you postulate theories, and then set up experiments to prove them either right or wrong; adjusting your theories from the results you get. In junk science, you come up with a preconceived notion, and force your test results to fit. It’s similar in some ways, to how the journalists of today write their ‘news’ stories. It is also how the Theory of Evolution is treated; no other school of thought or scientific evidence is allowed!

I have seen people make attempts at deriding MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen for his research on cloud cover. His work has been referred to by me here, and the scientists at ICR who actually conduct open-ended experiments to prove theories. What I didn’t know was that Lindzen his produced work on clouds and water vapour which was used for the IPCC’s third assessment report in 2001. Lindzen said of the requirement to force the conclusion into your models:

If you were doing that with a business report, the federal trade commission would be down your throat.

Junk science is when you force results to reach a fully expected preconceived conclusion and restrict and/or outlaw any debate that conflicts. Welcome to the new scientific world of the jackboots!

Source

Previous:

global warming apocalypse cancelled
Inhofe: global warming; merely alarmism
conclusions first, evidence to follow
Hamnation goes green
no, Patricia, global warming is not ‘indisputable’
Global warming idiocy propped by the UN
Global warming sham
Global warming hysteria
Ernest Haeckel, Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit
Are we designs or occurrences?
Green Nazis and Green Commies

Or you can just go to this section on green activism, most recent posts are in the beginning; and I may not have caught them all. You can also search for key terms in my ’search’ box.

Thanks to Pirate’s Cove, Gone Hollywood, Big Dog’s Weblog, Stuck on Stupid, Pentimento, Right Celebrity, Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, A Blog For All, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Phastidio.net, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, The Right Nation, Pirate’s Cove, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, Shadowscope, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Pink Flamingo, Church and State, Stop the ACLU, Right Voices and The Amboy Times and finally, if you have a trackback party and nobody’s coming, go over and hook up with Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

X Posted at TWA