http://pjmedia.com/blog/decision-based-evidence-making-more-disgrace-from-un-panel-on-climate-change/?print=1
They claim more certainty than ever in dangerous warming, while their own report’s data contradict the statement.
Most science teachers undergo the unpleasant experience of catching students fudging experimental data so as to yield desired results. If the data is not easily faked, students may simply run the experiment repeatedly until the “right” data are collected. They then discard the contradictory data.
Some such cheaters make it right through the education system; perhaps some become politicians, willing to direct staff to find evidence supporting decisions they have already made for political reasons. So it goes with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which deserves to be disbanded following the release of their latest report.
With the Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I part of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) along with the draft full report now released, we have an extreme example of such “decision-based evidence-making.” Since its last Assessment Reports in 2007, the IPCC has been revealed as committing most, if not all, of the below evidence-making ploys to prop up the global warming scare:
Ignoring contradictory data, and acting as it does not exist.
Releasing preliminary results before they are confirmed when those results support already decided-upon conclusions. Corrections made later rarely get as much attention as the initial announcement and so politicians ignore them.
Highlighting apparently supportive information that is true, but irrelevant. In the hands of a skilled communicator, such information can be made to sound significant to the uninformed.
Choosing supportive information from biased and/or unqualified sources.
Making the underlying foundational science so complex that even qualified experts need weeks to assess it. This gives politically motivated bureaucrats a window of opportunity to make grandiose announcements that almost no one recognizes are inconsistent with the underlying data.
Without consulting the experts who assembled a report, strategically editing the document just before release to the public so as to support political objectives while asserting that the report is supported by experts.
Outright fabrication of data to support expedient conclusions.