Guardian: Climate Scientists Massaging IPCC Report to Placate Nations Which Support Fossil Fuel

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian thinks climate scientists are being pressured to downplay their own research findings. But the Guardian fails to criticise the worst culprits in this alleged climate farce – the politically flexible scientists who make it all possible, by choosing of their own free will to continue to collaborate with powerful pressure groups which the Guardian alleges are manipulating the IPCC climate report process.

Climate study ‘pulls punches’ to keep polluters on board

Robin McKie science editor
Sun 23 Sep 2018 17.00 AEST

‘True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nations

Warnings about the dangers of global warming are being watered down in the final version of a key climate report for a major international meeting next month, according to reviewers who have studied earlier versions of the report and its summary.

They say scientists working on the final draft of the summary are censoring their own warnings and “pulling their punches” to make policy recommendations seem more palatable to countries – such as the US, Saudi Arabia and Australia – that are reluctant to cut fossil-fuel emissions, a key cause of global warming. “Downplaying the worst impacts of climate change has led the scientific authors to omit crucial information from the summary for policymakers,” said one reviewer, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“However, if governments do not recognise the full scale and urgency of the risks, they may underestimate how critical it is to meet the goal of the Paris agreement on climate change. And that could have very serious knock-on effects in the battle to limit the impact of global warming.”

Read more:

The report in question is the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C” (link provided by the Guardian)

My question – how could anyone of integrity continue to be involved in a process which they believe is forcing them to lie, to downplay their own findings?

If this claim is true, it is shameful that scientists are being pressured to censor their own findings. But it is reprehensible that those same scientists choose to comply with the alleged censorship, to continue their involvement with this sham report process.

How can anyone trust anything a climate scientist says, if they are so willing to compromise their integrity to “placate” powerful interest groups? Grumbling via a few back channels simply isn’t good enough.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Pawelek
September 23, 2018 3:40 pm

You’re assuming that Bob Ward who, it’s rumoured, leaked the report and story to the guardian tells the truth. Have you ever corresponded with Bob Ward; he who speaks with forked-tongue?

Reply to  Mark Pawelek
September 24, 2018 12:36 am

The Guardian heads this article with a photo of Arctic ice, yet they failed to inform their readers that the much vaunted “canary in the coal mine” : Arctic sea ice minimum, is no lower today than when they started screaming about an imminent ice “free Arctic” back in 2007.

In fact they totally forgot to report “key metric” of global warming every since 2013 when the annual minimum in ice volume INCREASED by about 45% in a single year.

It’s fantastic news that all those solar panels they installed in the UK ( arf arf ) have prevented the polar ice cap’s untimely death. I really don’t understand why they are not hailing this outstanding success of their attempts to raise public awareness.

This is fantastic news for all those who are concerned about ice melting, dying polar bears etc. Why to they hide this from their readers?

Reply to  Greg
September 24, 2018 8:18 am

“Downplaying the worst impacts of climate change has led the scientific authors to omit crucial information from the summary for policymakers,”
One might assume what was omitted was only “crucial” in an alarmists view. They left out all the highly unlikely doomsday scenarios?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Greg
September 25, 2018 12:21 pm

Arctic sea ice is also about the same as 1971

Henry Galt
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
September 24, 2018 8:04 am

You have it in one Mark.

Otherwise known as unadulterated lies from a lying liar.

September 23, 2018 3:43 pm

“The Guardian thinks climate scientists are being pressured to downplay their own research findings”.

But of course it’s ok to ‘enhance’ one’s own research findings, so as to not ‘dilute the message’, ‘give fodder for skeptics’, to ‘hide the decline’, ‘highlight its’ importance to the region’, and so on and so on.

Reply to  thingadonta
September 23, 2018 4:52 pm

Like adjusting 10 degrees of UHI….down 2 degrees….so you can claim the adjustments make it cooler

Joseph murphy
Reply to  Latitude
September 24, 2018 9:37 am

Did Mosh retire? I haven’t seen a drive by sentence fragment from in in ages.

Tom Halla
September 23, 2018 3:43 pm

So the Grauniad is accusing others of being vendidos? Looks like projection to me.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 25, 2018 9:47 am

in other words business as usual from the Grauniad

Bruce Cobb
September 23, 2018 3:46 pm

Ah – if only they could be allowed to lie freely, without encumbrances. If only they didn’t have to couch the lies in some truth. Then it would be a truly Green Green Greenie world, with butterflies, unicorns and lollipops. If only the stick-in-the-mud truth-tellers would just shut up. What a Greenie Greenie world it would be.

David Blackall
September 23, 2018 3:54 pm

“[H]ow could anyone of integrity continue to be involved in a process which they believe is forcing them to lie, to downplay their own findings?

If this claim is true, it is shameful that scientists are being pressured to censor their own findings. But it is reprehensible that those same scientists choose to comply with the alleged censorship, to continue their involvement with this sham report process.”

May I suggest that young career scientists, in particular, cop pressure from supervisors, from Faculty, “to censor their own findings”, or bend them to fit climate criteria. This toxic competitive ‘climate’ occurs especially in their probationary time, and if they don’t perform the probationary time is extended, and then fail this test, they are likely to lose their job. A required number of papers must be published a year and a number of research grants must be applied for amidst a rigorous teaching schedule. Universities can be high pressure and nasty environments, in such a context; young and mid-career scientists choose to comply with censorship, they must “continue their involvement with this sham report process”, and satisfy their more senior colleagues.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 23, 2018 5:49 pm

We have been assured that it’s acceptable for climate leaders to fly all over the world in private air planes in order to advance the message of global warming.
How is this any different?

david blackall
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 23, 2018 6:07 pm

Exactly Eric, but I am sure you know they are out there in academe, particularly in the humanities that don’t get scientific process, yet still dipping into the climate resource pool. Meantime, they ignore an alternative and proven science, also ignored by news media and academics alike, something known in agriculture and geography that global warming and climate change are brought about by deforestation, rather than by greenhouse gases alone. In her study ‘Tropical deforestation and climate change’ Karen L. O’Brien found that “[A]lthough the relationship between deforestation and climate change is complex, there is a growing consensus that deforestation leads to warmer, drier climates”. Various experimental studies at the microscale and modelling studies at the global scale, supplemented by a small number of observational studies at the local and regional scale form this consensus. However, “none of the local and regional studies examine both deforestation and climate change in a rigorous manner, or consider the results in the context of synoptic-scale phenomena. Consequently, there is considerable uncertainty associated with the local and regional impacts of deforestation on the climate”.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 24, 2018 1:03 am

“What kind of person could do that?”

A spineless academic. Very few even have a pair, that is why they are in favour transgender mutation. They are already half way there.

Weak people are amongst the most underhand and vicious in society.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 24, 2018 3:49 am

Please clarify who you think is doing what you claim?

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  David Blackall
September 23, 2018 10:50 pm

What a lame excuse. People can and often should change the courses of their lives.
My own example, started in the Air Force to be a test pilot with a B.E., B. Sc., injured in car accident, then changed to study science alone while doing geochemistry surveys, then worked for CSIRO on plant nutrition, then set up a fertuilizer lab, then set up my own general analytical lab, then went full-time on geochemistry/mine finding, with periods of running a pilot plant to beneficiate ilmentite, a spell in Iran on airborne surveys, a spell as Manager Government Relations for a large corporation, then working with call centres and polling and then hi-energy laser research and sales.
It is up to the individual to move to enjoyable employment.
If you stay and do not enjoy it, you can well regret it for the rest of your life. I’m now 77, so I think I can postulate that. Geoff.

david blackall
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
September 23, 2018 10:56 pm

Agreed Geoff, but you gotta see it to believe it. These people are aggressive bullies and they manipulate meetings, they set up research groups that assume the case is closed, then build their Research Council grant applications out from that. Everyone must fall into line, from lowly Masters students to the PHD candidate and onward to the probationary academic. I have seen it in the humanities and also the science areas. Tragic really. Professor Ridd in Australia is a case in point.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
September 23, 2018 4:09 pm

It’s the Gruaniad, so no one capable of independent thought,or with opposable thumbs, needs to worry about it. Any other newspaper and readership would have worked out that the IPCC was beginning to realise its doomster warnings were not coming true and that they need to backtrack quietly hoping not to attract too much attention. Happily, the green loonies won’t let them off the hook of their own making as they still believe in the whole catastrophe fairy tale. It will be interesting as the rats trapped in the barrel start falling out with each other big time.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
September 23, 2018 5:50 pm

Some of the Greenies believe it.
Some of them have careers that depend on others believing it.
Still others have hung their real agenda on the hook of climate change and can’t afford for it to come crashing down.

Reply to  MarkW
September 26, 2018 4:10 pm

The financialization of nature has a cult-like following.

September 23, 2018 4:11 pm

“My question – how could anyone of integrity continue to be involved in a process which they believe is forcing them to lie,”…

….that was rhetorical, right?

John Endicott
Reply to  Latitude
September 25, 2018 9:50 am

Indeed latitude, anyone who would continue to be involved in a process which forces them to lie, is *not* a person of integrity (by definition).

September 23, 2018 4:16 pm

Bob Ward has no idea what he’s talking about here. In actual fact, the IPCC authors will have taken great care to only include well-grounded scientific conclusions in the summary. Sadly, Bob thinks it should also include things that are highly uncertain and not widely-supported in the literature. He seems to have some sort of conspiracy theory that some content was removed for political reasons, but this is just silly. The reality is that the evolution of the text during the drafting and reviewing process will have been done on scientific grounds.

Also, whoever revealed the content of the earlier drafts has broken the terms of being an IPCC reviewer.

Reply to  Richard Betts
September 23, 2018 5:51 pm

“the IPCC authors will have taken great care to only include well-grounded scientific conclusions in the summary”

There’s a first time for everything.

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  MarkW
September 23, 2018 11:59 pm

Climate science equals politics; that must be very obvious by now.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard Betts
September 23, 2018 6:54 pm

“In actual fact, the IPCC authors will have taken great care to only include well-grounded scientific conclusions in the summary.”

The name “Santer” comes to mind…

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 23, 2018 11:28 pm

And there was I led to believe that the scientific reports were produced afterwards to fit the findings reported in the Summary for Policy Makers (politicians and the complicit media). You learn something new everyday about the Inter-GOVERMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

See Cliscep for a good summary, especially the comments:

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
September 24, 2018 8:09 am

“In actual fact, the IPCC authors will have taken great care to only include well-grounded scientific conclusions in the summary.”
– John Cleese (?)

With so many people falling about laughing this HAS to be a Monty Python skit, read with the right enunciation.

John Endicott
Reply to  Richard Betts
September 25, 2018 9:51 am

In actual fact, the IPCC authors will have taken great care to only include well-grounded scientific conclusions in the summary

I think you left off the /sarc tag.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Betts
September 25, 2018 11:15 am

Richard Betts,
Have you ever thought about owning your very own bridge? Think of all the benefits from owning Betts’ Bridge! Should you have any interest, I’d encourage you to get back to me.

Now that I have dispensed with the well-earned sarcasm, let me remark in seriousness. You said, “…, the IPCC authors will have taken great care to ONLY include well-grounded scientific conclusions in the summary.” Therein lies the problem and one of the consistent criticisms of the IPCC. When there are legitimate concerns about consensus views, and reasonable questions have been posed, they deserve to be included to provide the readers with a better insight on the uncertainty of the reigning paradigm. Leaving out minority views gives the impression that the science is more mature than is warranted by the available evidence.

Robert of Texas
September 23, 2018 4:31 pm

I will eat my hat (yes, I own one) when I see the IPCC ‘downplaying’ the effects of CO2. (and yes, this is hyperbole as I am pretty certain it would be impossible to actually eat it…)

Maybe, just maybe, they are starting to realize how ridiculous their over-estimates have become? But, no, that requires a honest person who can be introspective, so never-mind.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert of Texas
September 23, 2018 5:21 pm

When the Donner Party got really desperate they started eating the leather harnesses of their draft animals (which were no longer needed because they had long ago eaten the animals) before they started eating their shoes and boots.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
September 23, 2018 5:40 pm

And don’t forget “themselves”.
If applied to climate science, that would be interesting.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
September 23, 2018 6:40 pm

A hat can be quite palatable with seasoning:

September 23, 2018 4:53 pm

Its all about survival, hat of the IPCC. finally realising that we the general public have woken up to their lies and their playing with the data, so its time for them to start telling the truth, thaat we are not all goung to roast or just die.

That way perhaps they can come back one day to attempt to finally suceeed in their long term goal of World government, the dream of the so called progresives,


david lm
September 23, 2018 5:03 pm

The premise is not really correct though, with emissions in the USA trending negative and lower than they were 20 years ago. And emissions in Australia continue to fall as a percentage of global emissions because global emissions are increasing at a faster rate.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  david lm
September 24, 2018 4:52 am

The premise is definitly not correct.

The Guardian complains that: “True risks’ of warming played down to placate fossil-fuel nations”.

Yet the Guardian never complained about the Paris Climate Agreement which allows China and India to increase their emissions without limits until the year 2030. This action alone shows the Climate Alarmists are not serious about curbing the burning of fossil fuels. There are other motives at play than reducing fossil fuel burning.

Why isn’t China’s and India’s unrestricted burning of fossil fuels not characterized as a “True Risk”? Answer: Because it’s all about politics and political power.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 24, 2018 5:23 am

“recommendations seem more palatable to countries – such as the US, Saudi Arabia and Australia”

Yes no one ever mentions the elephant in the room China which continues to pour ~ 4% more CO2 into the atmosphere than the year before.

September 23, 2018 5:07 pm

We are now well and truly into the world of Franz Kafka. That is, a world in which you can be accused of breaking the law but even in your trial you aren’t allowed to know what that law is because it’s secret. What these people are telling us is that they will decide what the “rules” are, because some of the “rules” are no longer being written down.

Greg Cavanagh
September 23, 2018 5:12 pm

It wouldn’t matter what the IPCC, the report, or the scientists said; Bob Ward wouldn’t be happy with the outcome unless it was a Hell fire and brimstone report.

September 23, 2018 5:22 pm

Scientists are often cowed by activists. In Galileo’s Middle Finger, Alice Dreger describes how some really nasty social justice warriors and transsexual activists wrecked the careers of those who wouldn’t toe the line. The result is preordained scientific conclusions.

When someone, for whatever reason, really cares about the result, science cannot be trusted to produce the truth.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  commieBob
September 25, 2018 10:55 am

It sounds like you are talking about contemporary Washington politics!

Michael Jankowski
September 23, 2018 5:39 pm

Basically every paper which in some way casts doubt on the significance of man-made global warming has to genuflect to the warmista gods with statements about the reality of man-made global warming, how the best way to fight it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

The IPCC Summary for Policymakers tends to go above-and-beyond any scientific findings with aggression and rhetoric.

This guy wants to pretend that the opposite is true?

michael hart
September 23, 2018 5:43 pm

Bob Ward?
Say no more. His paycheck from Mr Grantham depends on him saying such things. Grantham himself opined a few years ago that one of his main concerns was that it wasn’t immediately obvious how best to profit from carbon pricing schemes.

Wiliam Haas
September 23, 2018 5:44 pm

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero,

The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system , or anywhere else in the solar system for that mater. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

Stopping the use of fossil fuels world wide will have no effect on climate. It is all a matter of science. For those that think that the use of fossil fuels is bad then they should stop making use off all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
September 23, 2018 6:42 pm

Couldn’t say it any better myself. Bull’s eye, Mr. Haas!

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
September 24, 2018 5:29 am

In the interest of scientific honesty, there is a back radiation effect by clouds; as witnessed by a desert being warmer on a cloudy night than a night without clouds. However you are correct; no one has ever shown the same effect with CO2. It’s effect if real is very very minor.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 24, 2018 7:04 am

Everything wants to be absolute zero unless energy is added, or in the case of clouds, trapped, like with a blanket. It’s called entropy. I like trapped, like a blanket, rather than ‘back radiation’. Clouds don’t radiate anything though they can obviously trap heat. Back radiation terminology helps justify the AGW conjecture. Compared to the .04% of our atmosphere which is co2, clouds are actually a real factor.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 25, 2018 10:59 am

Alan T,
There is however, a suggestion that at least water vapor (not clouds) is responsible for the Arctic warming faster than the rest of the humid Earth. If water vapor can warm the nights, then it isn’t out of the question for CO2 to do the same. As usual, the question is “How much?”

johann wundersamer
September 23, 2018 5:52 pm

Obama was able to speak very well and for a long time.

He could not pacify Iraq.

He could not dissolve Guantanamo.

He could not prevent the economic crisis.

You can talk about climate change for a long time. So he talked about climate change.

– Politicians look for topics when they can’t cope with other topics.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  johann wundersamer
September 24, 2018 5:41 am

Obama was clearly out of his league when it came to climate change. In fact it lred to a disastrous outcome, the ENDANGERMENT FINDING OF CO2. The EPA endangerment finding is a clear and present danger to the economic survival of the US. POTUS TRUMP must repeal it.

Jack Miller
September 23, 2018 5:59 pm

Enquiring minds want to know, oh wrong tabloid . . .

September 23, 2018 7:02 pm

The Guardian will be out of business long before the Arctic is ice free .
The IPCC was an instrument of the UN to shake down “have ” countries and to
more their global governance agenda forward . It’s not even in question they admit it .
The Guardian has made some big bets and has lost . Adios .

September 23, 2018 7:03 pm

“Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C”???? Really??

Notice how CAGW advocates continue to move the goalposts….

Previously, the “97% settled science” projected Catastrophic CO2 warming at 3.0~4.5C by 2100, which made it imperative for global governments to waste $76 TRILLION (U.N. 2008 estimate) over the next 40 years to keep ECS below 2C….

So I guess the new CAGW narrative is that global governments must waste $76 trillion to keep ECS must be kept below, what.. 1.0C????

All the physics and empirical evidence show actual CO2 ECS will be somewhere between 0.6C~1.2C (Lindzen & Choi 2012) if CO2 emissions increase under a business and usual basis…

So the new CAGW narrative is to waste $76 TRILLION to save an additional 0.2C of Catastrophic CO2 warming by 2100? What happened to the “97% settled science” 3.0~4.5C ECS”???

Hmmm… Most logical and rational humans would conclude not to waste one DIME on the CAGW sc@m, and ENJOY around 0.6~1.2C of beneficial ECS by 2100…

CAGW advocates are not just moving the goalposts, they’re moving the entire stadium…

CAGW is dead… It has become one pathetic joke.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 24, 2018 5:06 am

“What happened to the “97% settled science” 3.0~4.5C ECS”???”

Every new study of Climate Sensitivity seems to give a lower figure than the last, and they are all around 1.6C or lower. None of them are higher, so the IPCC has to move the goal posts to make it seem like they are reflecting reality.

By most accounts, 1.5C additional warming with a doubling of CO2 levels will not be harmful to the Earth or humans.

1.5C is now the upper limit and the IPCC has to acknowledge it.

And of course, there is always the possiblity that adding more CO2 will *not* raise the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere one iota, given possible negative feedbacks.

The *crisis* is over if ECS is 1.5C or lower, and it looks like it is. Much ado about nothing.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  SAMURAI
September 24, 2018 5:45 am

A pathetic joke that 97% of the world’s politicians and MSM believe in. We truly are in a world of Oz.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 24, 2018 5:52 am

As I speak there are still over 50000 households in Ottawa an advanced city of over a million people in Canada that have been without power for 3 days because of 2 small tornadoes that ripped apart, above ground transformer power stations. The initial total was 178000 households without power. If the previous government had spent the billions (that it spent on solar and wind installations) instead on putting those infrastructure underground , Ottawa would not be in the mess it is in today

Reply to  SAMURAI
September 24, 2018 9:24 am

The 97% was never about CATASTROPHIC Global Warming. Cook et. al. only stated that 97% of certain scientific publications admitted that there was some warming caused by AGW. It certainly didn’t say that anthropological warming was necessarily an important factor.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  CMS
September 24, 2018 10:39 am

The “97%” meme is a Big Lie. It doesn’t mean what people who use it think it means. It does not mean that 97 % of scientists believe humans are causing the climate to change, it really means that 97% of a small percentage of scientists polled believe that. The small number of people we are talking about do not constitute any kind of consensus. Not even close. It’s just a big lie. Propaganda. An easy lie used to shut down the conversation.

Gary Pearse
September 23, 2018 7:29 pm

This thing of Bob Ward is a “tell”. CAGW has come down a long way from its heyday – free-for-all with the Pause, with the Great Greening, bumper harvests clarioning a big net benefit for ‘carbon’ in the atmosphere, big end-of-world deadlines come and gone several times, death spirals now acknowledged to be pure hyperbole, temperature rise at 30% of expectations with signs of a returnto the old Pause even lugging the the heaped on adjustments with it. T

They’ve watered down the disaster temp rise by 2100 from a 95% confidence level 3-6C measured from 1950, first down to 2C, and with signs that it couldn’t reach 2C even with fossil fuels going wild at it, they stretched the 1950 marker back to 1850!! Then, with doubts not assuaged enough, down to 1.5C and with a tinge of embarrassment I hope,warned us how dangerous passing this rise from the LIA to 2100 this would be.

The elephant in the room, the only unequivocal sign of climate change, is the Great Greening. They are hunkered down right now trying to decide how to undo this very large benefit of elevated ‘carbon’. After a mostly silent 4 years, they put out a pathetic prognosis with little heart in it on how this development was really Hell-on-earth in disguise. They had to publish something to deal with the elephant for this upcoming “Assessment”. Yeah, they’ve had a rough time and part of the solution has to be a nother walk-back. With observations flat in a rising fountain of spaghetti graphage, upon which they jerked up the confidence levels from 90 to 95 to 99%, there is no stomach for more brass.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
September 24, 2018 5:17 am

“temperature rise at 30% of expectations with signs of a return to the old Pause even lugging the the heaped on adjustments with it.”

I love it!

The Climate Charlatans cheat and fudge the temperature numbers and then lose anyway, despite their best efforts! 🙂

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 24, 2018 6:03 am

“All other sessions of the IPCC meeting are closed to the public and to media. ”

A UN body that closes its meetings to the public when the subject is not global security measures against terrorism is a secret body with an agenda that is antiscience. How our governments can be party to this charade is beyond me. Canada and the US should not even be members of the UN anymore. The UN has lost all credibility.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 25, 2018 11:04 am

Alan T,

September 23, 2018 8:45 pm

So I have just one wish for you – the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. – Richard Feynman, parting thought at a Caltech commencement address. Real science by a real scientist.

Louis Hunt
September 23, 2018 8:53 pm

How would the Guardian know whether the report is being “watered down” or is being written to match the latest science on climate change? Do they have greater expertise on the subject than the climate scientists? I suspect that the Guardian would be displeased with any climate report that does not exaggerate the effects of climate change so as to create sufficient alarm. They don’t care if the report is scientifically accurate, only that it serves its political purpose.

September 23, 2018 9:16 pm

Guardian newspaper allegations and Bob Ward.

guardian reports that climate scientists preparing a report for an upcoming conference are being pressured to deny their own work that show that actual warming is not too bad. This from “professor” Bob Ward whose title puts hin squarely into the company of AGW enthusiasts. A more likely situation is staring us into the face: Bob Ward found out that the scientists did not find any dangerous warmings to report and he is trying to make them report a fake warming catastrophe that does not exist. The many failed predictions of this warmist crowd makes one think that maybe they really were not so stupid, just dishonest.

J Mac
September 23, 2018 9:33 pm

“Truth is relative.
Facts are situational.
Data is malleable.
Reports are massaged for the ‘greater good’.”

These are the standard methods of operations for the modern socialists, using Climate Change fraud to justify their need to force everyone to comply with their perverted philosophies.

September 23, 2018 10:11 pm

I can’t think of one person I would trust to save the world, it certainly wouldn’t be me.

E J Zuiderwijk
September 24, 2018 1:00 am

This is on a par with my favourity howler: at the end of WWII there were pacifists who just could not comprehend that the defeat of The Third Reich had something to do with the war machine built by the allies. No, it ended because Adolf had seen the errors of his ways and decided to stop it.

The writer of that risible Guardian piece simply can not comprehend that real scientists can have doubts about his received wisdom.

Mark Pawelek
September 24, 2018 1:29 am

Looks like reality is finally dawning on climate scientists. In the past, when they had the full support of USA’s president (pre-Trump), they could get away with embellishing their reports with lies (AKA :- the normal GCM projection). Take the lies away from IPCC reports and only loonies like Greenpeace, Guardian and Bob Ward are outraged. Because they still want to believe in catastrophe. It’s a personality defect of theirs. Nothing will fix that.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Mark Pawelek
September 24, 2018 2:42 am

The more one can make the people live in fear, the more they will look to one for the solution! If the people fear its government one has tyranny, if the government fear its people, one has democracy!

September 24, 2018 2:21 am

They left out the really bad bits. The high risk scenarios beloved of climate catastrophists the world over. The highly implausible but theoretically possible scenarios which alarmists have for years relied upon to drive their regressive energy and transport policies like a coach and horses through legislative obstacles.

The forthcoming IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C has been formally accused of “pulling its punches” in order to let polluters off the hook by none other than Bob Ward, policy wonk at the Grantham Institute. The so-called “Institute” is not an institute at all; it is nothing more than a marketing company set up by J.Grantham to flog us global warming using two real institutions, the LSE and now Imperial College to provide him with a veneer of scientific credibility.

Scientists who actually contribute to IPCC reports disagree with Ward however, even Peter Stott and Piers Forster:

comment image

Ward is forced to back down and in so doing, he drops himself in even more trouble:

comment image

Ward gets a right kicking from scientists and skeptics alike all over the internet. Some of it is here:

It is interesting to note that real scientists hold Ward in such contempt and which questions Ward answers and those he just ignores.

September 24, 2018 3:45 am

For several years climate extremists and alarmists have been unhappy with the IPCC for not supporting the apocalyptic vision the consensus is obsessed with.
Now these deceptive people are pressuring the IPCC into completely tossing aside even the pretense of being driven by the data.

Peta of Newark
September 24, 2018 4:51 am

2 parts here…..

1. The Grauniad will have been ‘wound up’, as have a lot of people in the UK, by watching Trash TV, *especially* a 6-part series that finished this Sunday.
Find out what ‘Bodyguard’ – from the BBC, was all about.
The timing is everything

2. Consider the last 3 paragraphs of our essay here, starting ‘My question -‘
Take a big leap of imagination – picture the participants as drunk = intoxicated with alcohol.
All those questions are immediately answered. It is so Blindingly obvious.
It explains everything they do.

Got that?
Now consider what the state of drunkenness actually is = a chemically induced depression of our nervous system, our brains, our thinking and our memories.

Now answer theses questions, with yourself as the chief witness:
Why do you crave coffee, especially early and mid-morning?
Why do you ‘power nap’ after an especially large lunch?
Why do yo ‘take coffee’ as the final course in ‘set’ or formal meals?
Why are highly processed & sweetened carbohydrate drinks used as insomnia remedies?

OK now.
Are the climate scientists Super-Humans who do not succumb to the effects of alcohol and other chemical depressants – such as – processed carbohydrate, refined sugar and alcohol.

And you are going to have to take my word (and Mr Trump’s) on alcohol.
After 40+ years of study of the stuff, 25 years on and 15 years off, I can categorically tell you that, as far as your mind, memory and personality goes, There Is No Safe Limit
If you stop drinking today, it is at least 6 months until you are even starting to ‘come out of the woods’
You will not be ‘just fine’ tomorrow.

Hence a resubmission of a request I made several times here before:
Politicians, government officials & leaders, scientists and doctors should be *entirely* barred from office if the are not completely tee-total AND if the have waist sizes of over 37 inches. (for the boys that is)

Otherwise we are all riding on trains. cars, buses and taxis with drunks for drivers.
It cannot end happily.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 24, 2018 5:09 am

you saw my deliberate omission from the list of ‘barred people’?


and in the UK certainly and the days of Fleet Street, one of the hardest drinking occupations there ever was.
In the same league as doctors, except doctors did their drinking at home after work, not during.
makes sense now huh..

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 24, 2018 5:44 am


Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2018 7:25 am

Exactly Andrew.

Steve O
September 24, 2018 5:00 am

This column makes a very important point. The public has been fed the narrative that climate scientists are beyond reproach, who don’t alter their work based on non-scientific political pressures. Therefore they must be believed.

This is a change of story. But if The Guardian wants to say that political motives can drive the “scientific” conclusions, then I’ll agree.

(Of course, nickels and dimes from “the fossil fuel lobby” is still a corrupting influence, while wheelbarrows full of cash from those calling for hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth transfers based entirely on CAGW have no corrupting influence.)

Matthew Thompson
Reply to  Steve O
September 24, 2018 6:30 am

Correcto-mundo Steve O! This is a bigly admission by the watchdogs of IPCC policy. Climate scientists have altered their research results for political acceptability. Two possible interpretations of this admission:
1) It is demonstrated what many of us suspected all along, that climate science has always been directed by politics.
or 2) The initial integrity of climate science has collapsed under political pressure.

Because of either 1) or 2), I declare climate science in shambles. It’s time to tear down the entire discipline and build it from the ground up.

Thank you for your candor, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment!

Peter Plail
September 24, 2018 5:07 am

Why do they pick out US, Saudi Arabia and Australia as polluters when China and India are the big culprits? (not that I think any of them are guilty of anything to do with causing climate change).

Andrew Wilkins
September 24, 2018 5:45 am

The comments below the article are priceless.

September 24, 2018 6:20 am

Mainstream climate “science” has been very effective at putting an Alinsky twist on Baudelaire’s “The devil’s finest trick is to persuade the world that he does not exist.”

The warmists greatest trick is persuading the world they have no power are are being oppressed by big oil, corporations, Trump, GOP, …

September 24, 2018 6:41 am

How can anyone trust anything a climate scientist says, if they are so willing to compromise their integrity to “placate” powerful interest groups?

Simple maths:

NO + $ = YES

Bruce Cobb
September 24, 2018 7:02 am

They don’t want to admit it, but of course, it’s Trump’s “fault” they are having to backpedal. Without Trump, the whole charade would have been damn the torpedoes, full-speed ahead. Interesting that they are using the shield of “fossil fuel nations” as their excuse. All nations are fossil fuel nations, even if they won’t admit it. China most certainly is a “fossil fuel nation”.

September 24, 2018 7:02 am

The larger absurdity is that this story is warning that “scientists” are watering down the “dangers of global warming” revealed by their research while ignoring fact that the research in question is based on underlying assumptions that have been disproved.

September 24, 2018 9:22 am

I’m so tired of all my dancing around the PC.
Time to let it go with both bores.

September 24, 2018 10:33 am

To paraphrase an old joke:

How can you tell whether a climate scientist is lying? — If his lips are moving.

Okay, I left no room for the heroes there. SOLUTION: Avoid calling yourself a “climate scientist”; hence, the joke does not apply to you.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
September 24, 2018 10:40 am

Now this:

My question – how could anyone of integrity continue to be involved in a process which they believe is forcing them to lie, to downplay their own findings?

My answer — as I read it, those involved in the process are not the ones believing that they are being forced to lie. Rather, those REVIEWING the results of the process are the people making this claim.

I wonder who the REVIEWERS were.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
September 24, 2018 10:51 am

Okay, I answered my own question, by clicking to the full-story link to find this:

one reviewer, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment

Look up that research institute, and you’ll find that it is associated with an academic political science and economics department. And I have a feeling that this institute’s mission is founded on an old, illegitimately created definition of “climate change” that the United Nations first came up with at the start of this madness.

September 24, 2018 2:18 pm

Auuugh. I will interrupt this conversation to vent on a Pet Peeve, one that was passed on to me personally by Dr Don Knuth, “father” of computer science according to some.

Pet Peeve: That vs Which

The title of this article is incorrect. Misleading in fact.

“Climate Scientists Massaging IPCC Report to Placate Nations Which Support Fossil Fuel”

With rare exceptions (other than poor usage such as here), “Which” introduces a non-restrictive clause (and normally is preceded by a comma in these kinds of situations.)

*** Leaving out the “which” clause doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence! ***

In other words, correctly read, the title tells me Climate Scientists are Massaging the Report… to Placate Nations — perhaps all nations.

Correctly written, it should be:

“Climate Scientists Massaging IPCC Report to Placate Nations That Support Fossil Fuel”

Here’s a short-but-sweet complete definition:

A restrictive clause is essential to the meaning of a sentence – if it’s removed, the meaning of the sentence will change. For example:

Chairs that don’t have cushions are uncomfortable to sit on.
Card games that involve betting money should not be played in school.
To our knowledge, it is the only body in the solar system that currently sustains life…

A non-restrictive clause can be left out without changing the meaning of a sentence. Non-restrictive clauses are normally either in brackets or have a comma before and after them (or only before them if they come at the end of a sentence):

Chairs, which are found in many places of work, are often uncomfortable to sit on.
I sat on an uncomfortable chair, which was in my office.

D Cage
September 25, 2018 12:35 am

Well the Guardian should know all about massaging figures as it keeps us on their list of customers even after it has banned us climate change disbelievers from commenting and we have as a result asked to be removed.
The poor mugs who pay on the basis of numbers are being well and truly conned.

%d bloggers like this: