The UN’s IPCC telegraphed its intention to try and drag out its alarmist Summary for Policymaker(s) of this year’s Fourth Assessment Report by stringing them out through the course of the year, releasing four such documents, one for each Working Group. The media already went through the de rigueur hysteria earlier in the year for WGI, likely lost in the memory’s recesses after last week’s Goregasm. Fear not, the IPCC has announced that the “wash, rinse, repeat” nature of their alarms will continue anon, beginning on April 2, likely with a 3-4 day news cycle trumpeting “thousands of the world’s leading scientists” drafting a document proclaiming the end of the world.

AP’s Seth Borenstein will no doubt write a story in advance announcing how Working Group II has concluded that things are much, much worse than previously thought and this time they are much, much more certain; his story will prove, yet again, to be hogwash (speaking of wash, rinse, repeat).

Bear this in mind, however: the WGII plenary kicks off on April 2 at 10 a.m. Brussels time. If you know how these things work then you know that they begin with seemingly endless gasbaggery. You can see by the speakers already announced that this event will be no exception.

Then, according to none other than the IPCC, by 9 a.m., after what appears to be 3 days to draft a consensus summary of thousands of pages of underlying science, the edited, approved, bound hard copy version of their hard-fought agreement will be available to the press. Now, this is not only in the European Commission, mind you, but the UN working in cooperation with the EC. So just remember this process of quite obviously simply approving something, with a handful of people – not “thousands of the world’s leading scientists” – haggling over a few details the pre-fabricated preferred characterization of a draft version of someone else’s work still not yet completed (the actual WGII document will be completed this summer), when you are told to imagine a process by which “thousands of scientists!!!!” cobbled the document. Nonsense.

Even the underlying science, as MIT’s Richard Lindzen has pointed out – after abandoning the distorted process for which he served as a Lead Author – only includes scientists having agreed (with one other scientist, typically) on the one page to page-and-a-half that they were tasked with drafting. No one is ever asked if they agree with the report, let alone the Summary drafted by bureaucrats, politicians and lobbyists. As always, good luck finding that inconvenient truth in the press coverage.