U.N. climate report was censored

[xchrom]

http://grist.org/news/u-n-climate-report-was-censored/

?w=470&h=265&crop=1

***SNIP

And it turns out the summary was watered down — diluted from an acid reflux–inducing stew of unpalatable science into a more appetizing consommé of half-truth. The Sydney Morning Herald has the details:


A major climate report presented to the world was censored by the very governments who requested it, frustrating and angering some of its lead authors. …

[E]ntire paragraphs, plus graphs showing where carbon emissions have been increasing the fastest, were deleted from the summary during a week’s debate prior to its release. Other sections had their meaning and purpose significantly diluted. They were victims of a bruising skirmish between governments in the developed and developing world over who should shoulder the blame for, and the responsibility for fixing, climate change.

One report author joked that he felt like a “pawn” who had been sacrificed in a game. Several others told Fairfax [Media Limited] the rancour was much greater than in previous IPCC meetings.

[2naSalit]

1. K&R

[raccoon]

2. Ostriches. Recd. nt

[truebrit71]

3. Un-real...

[caraher]

4. That's just the IPCC process

"Censored" is a bit sensationalist... as a consensus document it has to pass muster with many governments that have decided to let the full truth out is a bad thing. Censorship suggests the final draft was suppressed; but it's more accurate to say that things were toned down substantially in the process of creating the final draft.

Evidently this time around was worse than usual. But the lesson doesn't change - the IPCC statements always err on the side of saying the problems are less than they likely are.

[Nihil]

5. "Censored" is appropriate when the science is being suppressed ...

... purely to benefit the powerful bodies involved in the suppression.


Especially true when it is done explicitly to reduce the pressure to agree to
*anything* at the next international climate farce, sorry, "negotiations".


>> In other parts of the summary, objections from rich nations resulted in the
>> removal of a line saying: “In 2010, ten countries accounted for about 70 per
>> cent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes.”

>> They also demanded, and won, removal of a line reporting that ethical mitigation
>> of climate change would require the developed world to transfer “hundreds of
>> billions of dollars per year” to non-OECD countries to invest in green technologies.

>> Objections from "upper middle income" countries resulted in the deletion of
>> a graph that showed the stunning rise in emissions from those countries in
>> the decade to 2010, compared with other parts of the world.


Physics, chemistry and the biological response to changes really aren't interested
in "consensus" and the longer that the chief polluters deny the problem, the worse
will be the result.