SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
Riiiiiight...."Scientists" hand picked by politicians aren't going to give their benefactors exactly the results that they want to get.Obviously, the UN is a political organization and when the IPCC was first formed, its members were hand-selected by their governments. But the idea that all those governments had the same aims is ludicrous. What they did have in common was a fairly strong desire not to rock the boat. The first two IPCC assessment reports were made more conservative by political influences. That is, the science supported more alarm than the politicians wanted to publish.
However, the world was getting data from other places as well. The IPCC funds NO science. Everything they use is science published on its own right in the normal science publications. Through those normal channels, the world began to assimilate the idea that man-made global warming was more dangerous than the IPCC was telling them. This empowered the scientists working for the UN and political biases towards threat minimization almost disappeared.
The paranoid fantasies that we see from deniers here; that the IPCC wants to take over the world or destroy the world or whatever nonsense they are spouting today is patently absurd. You will frequently see people chastizing the critical thinking of their opponents here. If you, yourself wish to be critical in your evaluations of these various claims, your first step ought to be to eliminate those claims that do not pass a simple sanity check. That every single man-jack of the thousands of the world's climate scientists is involved in a perfectly secure, perfectly functioning, decades long conspiracy to deceive the public in order to... who knows, does NOT pass a simple sanity check. That the IPCC has some political motivation that drives all their work is just another variation of the same failed nonsense.
Wanna buy some seaside property in Arizona?
The IPCC has been in existence now for almost 31 years. Very few of the original employees are still there and the point of my comment is that governments now put less pressure on scientists than they did and that when they did, their aim was to MINIMIZE the threat the IPCC conclusions saw in global warming. These refute your contentions.
Does the IPCC still produce a report for policy makers which maintains its alarmist nature, leaving out a great deal of the uncertainty that exists regarding the climate?
The answer is yes...it is a political body providing alarmist claptrap to politicians...and meat heads who are anxious to be fooled.