Saturday, September 18, 2021
Home Middle Column Analysis: UN IPCC 'an organisation that is funded by 'Big Green', comprised...

Analysis: UN IPCC ‘an organisation that is funded by ‘Big Green’, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups… anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised’

-

Even if the IPCC predictions were 100% correct…

http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/09/29/even-if-the-ipcc-predictions-were-100-correct/

Adversarial process required?
… why should anyone trust them?
The AGW advocates delight in making shrill claims about sceptics being funded by “Big Oil”, which the advocates believe is a perfectly good reason to dismiss much, if not all, of what they say as compromised. But what’s the difference with the IPCC? It is an organisation that is funded by “Big Green”, comprised of governments desperate to appear politically correct, vested interests from academia and business, and environmental activist groups. What goes for one, goes for the other. By analogy, anything the IPCC says must be regarded as equally compromised.
The only differences, as far as I can see, are that:

Big Green funds the AGW advocates a thousand dollars for every one dollar funding sceptics;
the IPCC shies away from transparency and open debate, whereas sceptics encourage it.

So even if all the dire predictions of the IPCC were correct, why should anyone believe them? And how is such a problem resolved?
The success of the adversarial process in a court of law relies on cross-examination and forensic analysis by those on the other side of an argument. By forcing a witness to answer difficult questions, and putting to him an alternative set of circumstances, a skilled counsel can drill down to reveal the uncomfortable truth that the witness may be reluctant to reveal. At the moment, the IPCC is a courtroom with a defendant (human emissions of CO2), but no defence lawyers present. All we get is the prosecution case. And the defendant is, unsurprisingly, quickly found guilty.
The alarmist industry, including the IPCC, must engage with those on the other side of the debate, and willingly bring them into the process, instead of excluding, and then demonising them. The IPCC should actively want its reports fact-checked and picked over by those who disagree. It must embrace the cross-examination of sceptics, as such a forensic examination would lend huge credibility to its findings.
But that change is not going to happen in a hurry, and until it does, the IPCC’s predictions are as worthless and compromised as the alarmists claim those of the sceptics to be.

Sent by gReader Pro

- Advertisment -

Related Articles

Question the Dogma

There is another point of view which needs to be heard.

Climate Activist Fury at BBC Suggestion they Target China

According to BBC's Roger Harrabin, "... Greenpeace and WWF have offices in Beijing and if they rattle China too hard, they could be swiftly...

Nuclear Power: Dangerous Hope to Soften CO2 Pricing

This exchange with a sophisticated nuclear proponent is illustrative of the current debate regarding the future of nuclear power (my thoughts here). I would note...