IPCC scientists routinely evaluate their own work. What could possibly go wrong?
Strip away the pseudoscience and you’ll find one thing: politics. People attempting, via international treaties, to constrain human lives. For the sake of Mother Gaia.
A research paper doesn’t talk about increased crop damage by insects. But as occurred in the Himalayan glacier incident, the erroneous claim remains in the about-to-be released report.
At the heart of the climate change movement is the belief that we will be punished for our sins.
The editors of Foreign Policy magazine inhabit a fairy tale world of planet-saving superheroes and wicked climate deniers.
UN climate panel leaders don’t behave in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
I’ll be making a written submission to a UK parliamentary committee examining the latest IPCC report
Nobel-winning work about self-delusion and flawed judgment applies to all of us – even climatologists.
IPCC officials are telling Working Group 2 authors about scientific papers that haven’t been written yet. These papers will appear in a special edition of a journal guest-edited by an activist scientist.
The UK’s Guardian newspaper has published a fawning article about IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. But the article is pure propaganda. It was written by the Natural Resources Defense Council – a green lobby group that fancies itself “the Earth’s best defense.”
Many IPCC authors were chosen for reasons other than impressive scholarly track records.
A year after a damning assessment was released, the IPCC continues to thumb its nose at key recommendations.
We’ve been told more than 400 people answered a questionnaire about the IPCC last year. So far, only 232 records have been made public. No one will explain why.
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is dysfunctional and unaccountable. That Rajendra Pachauri remains as its chairman – despite widespread calls for his resignation – is proof of this.
The IPCC documents most likely to be read by outsiders – the Summaries for Policymakers – are not scientific statements at all. Rather, they are the result of a messy, arduous political negotiation that pits scientists against politicians.
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.
What do IPCC insiders really think of chairman Rajendra Pachauri?
IPCC insiders say non-peer-reviewed literature is essential and unavoidable when they write one of the world’s most important reports. Yet chairman Pachauri has, for years, insisted only peer-reviewed material gets used. Why haven’t scientific organizations set the record straight?
IPCC insiders say many of those who shared in the 2007 Peace Prize lack appropriate scientific credentials. They were selected because they are of the right gender or come from the right country.
Opinions regarding how the IPCC deals with errors are diverse. They can also be provocative. One IPCC official thinks public scrutiny of its reports should be discouraged.
The InterAcademy Council has been promising since August to release documents associated with an investigation of the IPCC’s policies and procedures. There’s still no sign of them.
A report released this week blows smoking holes through just about everything the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has been telling us.
The review committee examining the IPCC process has recommended that “rigorous conflict of interest” policies be adopted. Hallelujah.
Includes links to submissions various informed individuals made to the body examining the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The uncritical coverage by the mainstream media notwithstanding, the IPCC is a profoundly flawed organization.