The scientists who write IPCC reports have so little authority that changing the word “systems” to “ecosystems” involves multiple layers of bureaucracy.
We teach children that a summary should accurately reflect a longer document. But things are topsy-turvy in the land of the IPCC.
Nations have been demoted; on the top level of the org chart we now find the Borg.
Scores of scientific minds. So much tomfoolery.
No matter how undemocratic, impoverished, sparsely-populated, or terrorism-promoting a nation might be, a sentence written by scientists will not survive if that nation objects.
On what planet is it OK for politically-determined definitions to supersede those written by actual scientists?
The IPCC publishes the citizenship and gender of its authors – but says nothing about their scientific expertise.
The latest IPCC report was a setup – a cynical ploy to produce alarmist media headlines that succeeded beautifully.
November 2000 and December 2009 were both supposed to be our last, best chance to save the planet from climate disaster. This week, the media is once again spreading this message.
If climate research is like other research, half of the IPCC’s 6,000 academic citations are dubious.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is essentially a law unto itself, an entrenched culture with no meaningful oversight mechanisms.
The BBC is a huge bureaucracy. The geniuses running it have declared another bureaucracy – the UN’s IPCC – a font of scientific truth. How pathetic.
Scientists aren’t in charge of interpreting climate research. They’re cogs in a political machine.
The New York Times publishes pablum about the IPCC.
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
Canadian greens say lake-destroying research is all about science – but how do we know for sure?
The full text of an interview I recently gave to FoxNews – and a link to the story.
The IPCC’s response to the leak of three data sticks is typical of that organization. It expects us to accept its version of reality at face value. Its statement provides no opportunity for the public to draw its own conclusions.
IPCC review editors were supposed to file a report last September. A third of them apparently didn’t bother.
Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.
According to scientists who’ve helped write its reports, the IPCC is not a scientific body first and foremost. Rather, its primary purpose is to lay the necessary groundwork so that an international climate change treaty can be negotiated.