Should the IPCC be disbanded?

Question

Their work is flawed, biased, dishonest and doesn't take recent cooling trends into consideration. It's become a group of close-knit buddies working against the facts towards a predetermined outcome. It now seems that even their peer-review process is suspicious.

http://climatescienceinternational.org/ - (near the top)

Answer 1

Since the IPCC is a political group, not a scientific organization, there is little reason to believe that this group will be disbanded soon.  They still have the ability to scare people and convince gvmts to raise taxes, which is the goal of the group.

However there is hope seeing that major scientific groups are now questioning the "science" behind man made global warming, the consensus is cracking.

This is what happens when one falls for subjective science.  Objective science stands on the math, not on opinions.

And peer review is junk.  Peer review is just like minded people reviewing others like minded work.  Of course they are going to agree.

Answer 2

ABSOULTLEY,

THE UNITED NATIONS SHOULD BE DISBANDED>  THEY SERVE NO ONE EXCEPT THEMSELVES, and the NWO.

Power corrupts, and ultimate power absolutely corrupts.

The UN, IPCC are just puppet politicians used to give the semblance of decency to governments worldwide.  

The UN is certainly not a police force, and even if they could be one.  Would we want it?  Every police force has been found to have some corruption if not a lot.  Anytime you give control over your life to some disinterested party they will usually take the most beneficial and easiest path for themselves.

You AGW people really floor me:  It is true if you tell a lie over, and over some people will start to believe it is true.  Some people is not me.  The best liars usually try to interpose some truth in their reasoning.

Yes the earth is heating up - it has been doing it for centuries. (Read your history books) There was a continental ICE SHEET COVERING THE US.  It is gone.  I would assume AGW reasoning is it must have been all those campfires.  Be honest.  If you are trying to make money make something that is practical, and works, that people want.  Do try to lie to me.  Theft by deception is still theft even though you used no force.  

What heats planet Earth?  Hmm. – the Sun  

What has Solar Cycles? Hmm. – the SUN  

What is a small contributor to Carbon Dioxide in the Air? Hmm – MAN

What is insignificant to planet temprature? Hmm. CO2.  CO2 levels rising percipitate temprature declines.

Does something look backwards in this equation?  AGW - you should have presented your lies at the very least in a more styimatic method, or chosen a more pratical villan than Carbon.

I would have chosen better spokesmen also R.Kennedy, A.Gore, and Liberman - what a joke.

Argue all you want.  I am a meat eater.  I do not eat Air.  Put some cold hard facts infront of me that Global Warming is Man-Made.  Don’t put a bunch of manipulated computer models in front of me.  I can program too – would you like a flower?

Hope this helps.

Answer 3

If you wish to talk about things that are flawed, biased, dishonest .

ICSC and from the menu on their site the ICECAP & SPPI are all the Heartland institute

There is also a link in the menu to "Manhattan Declaration" an event organised by, you guessed it the Heartland institute.

As a group organising the denier dis-information they are not even that good at what they do. They are also responsible for the phony petition. Most of the supposed facts against AGW seem to go back to one source. This would also include the recent spreading of APS article by the journalist Mocketon again first pushed by SPPI.

Answer 4

Yeah.  I was going to say disband the UN but that was already said.  Some people seem to love it when Libya and China chair human rights and apparently don't see anything wrong with that.   The US should kick the UN out and possibly establish a united free nations where China and Russia don't constantly try to undermine the interests of freedom and decency.   IPCC should be ignored since it is primarily a political organization with predetermined theories.

Answer 5

No.  They should be tried for inciting mass hysteria and encouraging a dangerous cult, THEN disbanded.  The proportion of Al Gore's net worth that was made off of global warming should be confiscated and donated to the victims of hurricane Katrina that he swindled.

Dr. Jello - I prefer to categorize peer review is irrelevant.  No important breakthrough in physics ever came from peer review; independent and critical thinking is what is crucial.

Richard & Ken - it's not the end of the world, it's just the end of YOU.  CO2 in the Cambrian was 4500-7000ppm and temperature didn't match your sacred models then, and it won't in the near future either.  Your theory is bankrupt.

Fritz Moeller said it best: 'the theory that CO2 causes climate variation is highly questionable.'

Answer 6

Not just IPCC but the whole UN should be disbanded.

What little good they do is offset by their stupidity, greed and wanting of world domination.

Answer 7

You will never disband this political group:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

Answer 8

Yes, as well as the UN itself.

The UN has "peace keepers" murdering and raping in the Sudan, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Remember the "oil for food" scandal in Iraq before we took out Saddam?

The UN is easily the most corrupt organization on the face of the earth, so why does anyone believe anything they say?  Except for socialists like Gore, that is.

We knew they were lying with all the IPCC data, but didn't know how much.  Turns out by a factor of 2000%.  They were purposely loading up the data to create a crisis that didn't exist and probably never will.

Humans have always believed the worst and so this kind of hoax played right into their hands.  Clever con, but the lies have been exposed at the source now.

Answer 9

Their mandate was to determine the effects of man-made global warming - - - they assumed from the get-go the causation that has never been proven.

As for peer review, it works when there's decentralized science, without an agenda.    When you have eight or nine different groups looking at similar issues, and they have several competing theories as to four or five distinct sub-issues, then peer review involves people who have a different theory reviewing your work.    This is fairly rigorous, although even then mistakes can be made.

With AGW, there's a widely-subscribed-to agenda, and most people made up their minds FIRST, and then looked for evidence to back them up.     "Peer review" just means different people with the same theory, often working with the same exact data and models using the same methodology, backing each other up.

Answer 10

Why didn't you bother following the links to the actual paper?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images...

Were you afraid of letting us all know the paper is from the SPPI?

That paper is little more than a conspiracy theory.  The main discussion is all about the authors of the IPCC reports.  This is not scientific evidence, and it doesn't refute the scientific evidene.

Answer 11

Well, if you're going to disband them, you should disband every major scientific organization on the planet, because they all agree with the science of AGW.

Forgive my frankness, but that is just plain stupid. We would be left with the American Petroleum Institute and the Heartland Institute. Long live the carbon intensive infrastructure!

I understand, you're afraid of science and a clean planet. You'll get over it.

Answer 12

Great idea!!!  Let's ignore the IPCC and listen to our own National Academy of Sciences instead:

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

Oops, they agree with the IPCC

OK, then let's listen to our scientists from NASA (they have more climate scientists than any other organization in the world):

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/G...

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007...

Oh Oh, NASA seems to agree with the IPCC too

Maybe we should just listen to the US Global Change Research Program:

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/default.php

Dang it, they agree with the IPCC too

Perhaps National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

Nope, not them either

The National Center for Atmospheric Research:

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/research/climat...

Nope

Boy, for only a "few dozen scientists" (as your link indicates are all that believe this stuff) they sure have taken control of a lot of prestigious organizations.