Is the IPCC a scientific organization or a political one?

Written by Donna Laframboise

SPOTLIGHT: We’re told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific organization that makes scientific determinations. But that isn’t true.

BIG PICTURE: The process by which climate change was declared a problem is a process only bureaucrats could love. In his brilliant book, Belgian writer Drieu Godefridi explains why the ‘IPCC = science’ claim is false.

It is a creation of governments. Its reports are creations of governments. To repudiate its findings, he says, would be to repudiate themselves.

Experts are nominated by governments to survey climate research and write a report. They’re assigned page limits, told what topics they must discuss, and warned that their conclusions must agree with earlier IPCC statements.

These experts have so little power they were unable to change the word ‘systems’ to ‘ecosystems’ in chapter four of the 2014 report.

Because the title of that chapter had been decided years earlier, this simple change would have needed the consent and cooperation of multiple layers of IPCC bureaucracy.

TOP TAKEAWAY: Scientists aren’t in charge of the body that interprets climate change research. Like most bureaucracies, the UN works to expand its own reach. Again and again, it uses ‘Science’ as camouflage.

Read more at No Frakking Consensus

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    Steve Dembo

    |

    If the organization gets its money from Govt, then it is a political organization. He who pays the $$$ calls the tune!

  • Avatar

    czechlist

    |

    The headline is “begging the question”.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    Steve Dembo you’re entirely correct.
    Also of note is that consensus in science rarely equates to it being more correct.
    See ‘Retraction Watch’ (http://retractionwatch.com/) for the many examples of science going awry and heading off in the wrong direction due to poor application of science, or just plain fraud.
    Sadly due only to political momentum, ‘climate science™’ has yet to fully undergo the academic equivalent of threshing, winnowing, and sieving out the rubbish, to correct it’s many errors.

Comments are closed