the worst thing that ever happened to the scientific conversation about possible man made climate change was when the term “global warming” was used. it has both confused those who are unable to understand the research/data and been used by those who hate talking about it (for a variety of reasons).
The two main reasons are, of course, money and politics.
You mean this is the science we should agree with:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate forecasts were wrong from their earliest reports in 1990. They were so inaccurate that they stopped calling them forecasts and made three “projections”: low, medium, and high. Since then, even their “low” scenario projections were wrong.
These are the people we are supposed to believe. The one’s that can’t get the predictions right on how much warming will occure. How many predictions have they made now? Err how many “corrections” to their predictions have they made?
The SPM is consequently a highly political document that fulfils policy objectives of the member governments and typically does not properly reflect uncertainties in the underlying science.
Basically once the political pencil necks get the report, they bend and twist it to meet their objectives – then the SPM is released to the public.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change procedures allow government representatives to ultimately control the underlying science reports as well by specifying that changes to the science reports may be made even after they have been approved “to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers.”
Things that make you go hmmmm. Politicians can demand and make changes to the underlying science reports to make sure it’s consistant with the message they want to put out.
So you think it was only US republicans that tried to make edits to fit the narrative they wanted to push? And your article only points to a US EPA report. NOT the UN report that was mentioned in the article I posted.