Parts 6 and 7. Discrediting the IPCC
The IPCC is generally acknowledged to be the world’s leading expert on climate change. Recall John Holdren’s paean to the organization. But its reputation is undeserved.
First, it is essentially a political, not a scientific, entity. It is made of governments and the scientists are not in control.
Second, it is inherently biased against CO2. It serves a treaty dedicated to finding CO2 guilty.
Third, it has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count. Take, for example, the case of Eigil Friis-Christianson, an early proponent of the importance of the sun/cosmic rays explanation for climate change. He was shut out by the IPCC. Only supporters of the CO2 theory need apply.
Fourth, its ranks are filled with environmental activists. Think of the howling that would ensue if a former employee of Exxon-Mobil was appointed chairman of the IPCC. Why then Rajendra Pachauri and his successor Figueres (sp?)?
Fifth, its expertise is not as advertised. Pachauri boasted that the IPCC uses only the best and brightest. Why then have so many graduate students served as lead authors? Why are so many acknowledged experts excluded or driven out?
Sixth, its vaunted review process is not very scientific. What scientific organization gives politicians the last say over what goes into its reports and summaries? What scientific organization lets it lead authors judge the merits of his own work or that of his critics? What organization gives the Hockey Stick special prominence with no due diligence?
Seventh, the Hockey Stick
I could keep going.
The long and short: Anything the IPCC says—even “The sun is shining today”—can be doubted with impunity. The prosecution’s star witness has been utterly and totally discredited.