“We live in a world in which people are suspicious of politicians, but still respect scientists. Politicians are therefore eager to borrow the prestige of science, to camouflage their own agenda with a veneer of scientific authority.”
1. IPCC is Political, not Scientific.
Since it’s founding in 1945, the UN has been solely a political entity.
So it should be no surprise that the IPCC is not a scientific organization despite their claims that they are.
2. Scientists are not in charge.
“Now if scientists were in charge at the IPCC, at the end of the process these summaries would be written up by a small group, released into the world, and we’d all read these scientists’ unadorned words. But that’s not what happens.” Sure they take input and reports by scientists, but then subject those reports to marathon political sessions of highly detailed, paragraph by paragraph redaction, deletions, and insertions. During these Intergovernmental meetings, they tailor the reports created by scientists to suit the IPCC and by extension, the UN agenda.
3. The IPCC is a template that gets duplicated elsewhere.
The UN uses this same template to deal with other issues they deem globally significant.
“Between 2003 and 2008, the UN sponsored the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology (IAAST). Described as an “IPCC for agriculture,” this effort was led by Robert Watson – who had just wrapped up five years as IPCC chairman.”
“And then there’s the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – aka the IPBES. In the words of the Guardian newspaper, this is an “IPCC for nature.” Robert Watson is involved here, too. At the moment, he’s a Vice Chair. And, what do you, know? This IPCC clone is linked to yet another UN treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
One has to wonder about what gets ignored and left out of the scientific reports that the IPCC summaries are based upon. You can be sure it feeds the unscientific, so-called ‘climate consensus’ viewpoint.
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” ― Michael Crichton
All quotes except Crichton, Donna Laframboise, Sep. 1, 2015
Donna is an investigative journalist who has spent the past 6 years examining the climate debate. Read her full presentation to the World Federation of Scientists, August 2015, Erice, Italy at the following link:
3 Things Scientists Need to Know About the IPCC