Do the scientists on the IPCC work for the UN?

Question

"If the UN gives them money for their research, then the answer is yes."

And if the UN doesn't? Dana is correct.

"they sure get some lucrative positions"

Mostly they had those positions before they served on the IPCC. They're some of the best scientists in the world.

Answer 1

i really dont care who they work for.  i dont believe either on this global nonwarming issue.  are you trolling here with this question?

Answer 2

The overwhelming majority of members of the IPCC are NOT scientists.  They are politicians and civil servants.

Answer 3

The scientists on the IPCC are supposedly not paid during their tenure, but they sure get some lucrative positions after their tenure.  I am talking 150k plus jobs, being in charge of science departments, some even unrelated to global warming.  

I will wait till you ask me for my sources again and I will gladly oblige.

Answer 4

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations.

Unep is a good name for it or more appropriately inept.

Answer 5

Yes and world bank Big TAX Scam

EPW Fact of the Day: Clinton, Obama Sign Onto to Boxer’s $4,500 Climate Tax on American Families May 9, 2007http://www.firesociety.com/article/24204...

Posted by Marc Morano - [e-mail] - 1:34 PM ET   Senate Environment & Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) have proposed the "Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act" aimed at combating climate change. The proposed partisan bill (S.309) is supported by another 15 senators, including: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY); Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT); Sen. Joseph R. Biden (D-DE); Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA); Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI); Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD), and Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD). FACT: A new MIT study concludes that the Sanders-Boxer approach would impose a tax-equivalent of $366 billion annually, or more than $4,500 per family of four, by 2015. And the annual costs will grow after 2015. [Read full MIT study]  The Kyoto Protocol would have imposed an equivalent tax of $300 billion a year, 10 times the size of the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 1993. In addition to the MIT study, a new Congressional Budget Office study released recently, details how a carbon cap-and-trade system would result in massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. [Read more on CBO study] Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), EPW Ranking Member, said today:

"Carbon caps would artificially and needlessly raise the cost of energy the most on the people least able to afford it. It astounds me that any Senator could support such a proposal."

Read Senator Inhofe's full opening statement from today's EPW subcommittee hearing [Link]  

Global Cooling and Climate Cycles

The exploitation of climate science for purely political goals has been occurring throughout the developed world for years. Not long ago, in the 1970s and 80s, many "climate experts" claimed certainty and consensus about global cooling. However, there is nothing especially unusual about the current weather and climate changes. In fact it is generally within long-term normal patterns.

- The Cooling World --Newsweek, April 28, 1975.- Warming Over the Last Century by Roy Spencer, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center- Temperatures Over the Last 2000 Years, by Roy Spencer- What if we get global cooling instead of warming? by Tim Ball- Early Explorers Documented Climate Change by Tim Ball

Carbon Dioxide .....dangerous?

Humans add to the green house gas concentration by exhaling, harvesting plants, and generating and releasing energy for our homes, cars, factories, etc. All of these actions involve hydrocarbons such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas. Carbon dioxide is not a byproduct or a pollutant but the intended result of energy production. The more efficiently one combusts hydrocarbon, the more CO2 one produces. For this reason, those who are that "energy efficiency" is the solution to global warming are wrong.

- Global Warming, Humans, Carbon Dioxide---Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? by Timothy Ball

- World Temperature Falling Whilst CO2 Keeps Rising---New Proof- A Skeptic's Take on Global Warming by Bill Steigerwald of Human Events

Tax Increases

Americans are about to be hit with a $1.3 trillion tax increase if Al Gore and his radical climate alarmists push succeed in their agenda. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being pushed to create the largest expansion of government power in our nation's history. This massive tax scheme could cripple the economy and allow bureaucrats to tax air.

- CBO Report Exposes Lieberman-Warner Bill's $1.2 Trillion Tax Increase by Marc Morano, Inhofe EPW Press Blog

- Tim Ball, public speaker and climatology consultant says that the federal

government is spending buckets of moneyPart 1, Part 2

- EPW Fact of the Day: Clinton, Obama Sign Onto Boxer's $4,500 Climate Tax on American Families by Marc Morano

Killing Our Economy?

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to "fight" global warming just doesn't make sense, and is more likely to ruin economies of first-world nations than make any significant impact.- Roy Spencer, author of Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, says that there is nothing we can do--short of shutting down the global economy. More here- Wake Up Wal-Mart: Global Warming Regulation is Bad for Business by Thomas Borelli

- Mutal Fund Calls on GE to Stop Advocating Global Warming Regulation by Steve Milloy of the Free Enterprise Action Fund- My Take on Gore and Global Warming by Larry Kudlow- Inhofe Praises President Bush for Rejecting Lieberman- Warner Bill

Answer 6

Nope, the scientists on the IPCC work for many various scientific institutions and donate their time in order to produce the IPCC report.  The UN is simply the organizational body.

Answer 7

I've read some comments from participants in the IPCC who just insult the intelligence of what they call contrarian scientists.  It seems like a cliquey political process.  

In the IPCC reports, absolutely critical assumptions, like the value of radiative forcing for anthropogenic CO2 is just asserted without any explanation of where that number comes from.  This information is crucial as to whether significant AGW is real or not and it's just asserted in their reports as if it were religious dogma.

If the best proof of significant AGW is that the IPCC thinks its likley - for many people that's not confidence inspiring.

Answer 8

And meanwhile in the real world (louy lefty) the actual answer is NO the scientists of the IPCC are experts in there various fields and are employed by research groups around the world and most were researching this long before the IPCC existed.

Answer 9

If the UN gives them money for their research, then the answer is yes.

If money is transferred, then the data is biased, as human nature tends to give the customer what they are looking for.  Since the UN is looking for signs of "global warming", then the tendency is to give them what that seek.

This isn't to say that the scientist are biased or have a political agenda.  This is the reason for double blind funding - to provide a wall between the customer and the science.

Since the funding was known, the data cannot be considered objective and should be discarded.