Quote by Roger W. Cohen, physics, American Physical Society fellow: “I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC's case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is....I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.”
Then you have the fact that dissenting argument is shut down:
Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."
Those 'objective assessments' have gone on without consideration in the frantic actions to misinform people about the truth and make the bogus and highly unscientific agenda prevail.
Then there are the thousands of trolls like Rainforest Jim (There are no jungles now, there are only rain forests.) out there following Goebbels' highly successful method of repeating the lie often enough and the masses of the people will believe it. Even intelligent and rational people can be taken in by the lie under these circumstances. Especially when all dissent is quashed.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
And to Rainforest Jum, the whole report is that type of kissing. Apparently, you are so close to the derriere that you don't see it the way normal people do.
Distrusting people just because they have a "desk job" [1] and "get a salary funded by taxes" is by definition irrational! The fast majority of them do the best job they possibly can (I know I have been a private contractor at various government organizations and have seen more even bureaucracy in private business) Distrusting the NSA who has little oversight and has been shown on multiple occasion to overstep it's authority, is on the other hand perfectly sane. For those who prefer video's I can recommend former NSA employees speaking about the NSA "Enemies of the state" [2] in addition to looking up wikileaks, Chelsie manning and Edward Snowden.
Now lets have a look at the IPCC as you missed some parts of their "mission statement", (I can't find it on their website [3], but I did find a reference to your text on an edu site) now why would you ignore the full text unless you were trying to push your conspiracy theory?
"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage." [4]
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with a Summary for Policymakers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[5]
This "non elected body" you speak of are appointees of the various governments and it would be useful to understand that especially the US is right wing and while the most influential by all means, not the only "right wing" nation. There is the extreme right wing tea party hell bend on destroying the US from within and who effectively rule the GOP and the little less extreme right wing who rule the Liberals. [6] And it is useful to understand that the US government also appoints representatives to the UN, just that those representatives are not directly elected that does not mean they do not represent the politicians of the various nations.
Seriously your conspiracy theory is irrational, since the IPCC statements have to be approved line by line by ALL governments, their recommendations would more likely be watered down then hyped.
Edit;
And I see Sagebrush is still posting quotes, so let me post some statements made by Sagebrush himself like "Execute all those who voted for Obama", "Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch" and "Justice and equality are codewords for communism".
Well, it's not surprising you're confused. The whole of Canada is confused.
I mean, Canada signed up in 1994 to a UN treaty to combat desertification. Then Stephen Harper decided against it, so Canada withdrew from the treaty. And then, despite withdrawing, you continued to honour your payment into the fund for that treaty this year. Of course, Harper also tried to gain a seat in the UN Security Council in 2010, and failed. So maybe all this UN bashing by your government is the result of one man sulking in the corner because he didn't get into the big boys club. Boo hoo. The UN was fine when he wanted a seat at the table. Now it's not ok and a waste of cash when he didn't? Hmmm ....
And, it would seem, you've fallen for the anti UN rhetoric of your own conservative government. You know? The ones who spent an additional 1 billion dollars on defence and ballooned the deficit. The ones who enable Canadian mining firms to destroy water supplies in Latin American?
Sorry, but I'm not going to take a lecture on the environment from conservative Canadians.
Yes because politicians and elected officials are always incorruptible, honest, and have absolutely no agenda.
As suggested the IPCC reports are based on scientific papers, if you find issues with their review submit documentation, instead of insinuating unsupported opinions.
I guess because rational people actually read the IPCC's reports rather than the inane BS that you post.
Tell us , genius , where do you find errors or alarmism or *** kissing etc etc in this http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...
Seriously : put up or shut up
I think people on both sides of the political spectrum have a distrust of government bureaucrats. I don't believe there is a UN conspiracy to make people live in hobbit homes or to take away everyone's guns, but I do believe that non elected government *** kissers are mainly looking out for their own best interests. The mandate of the IPCC is to "...assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the RISK of human-induced climate change..."
You have a non elected body consisting of 195 overpaid bureaucrats who's goal is to basically create alarmism about climate change. Imagine if you had a UN group of gun activists whose mandate was to assess the risks of not owning a gun. What do you think most of their reports would conclude?
