Agree
|
Climatology Professor, IPCC Lead Author
Agree
A real challenge has been to ensure that the assessments are objective, and not influenced by government agendas; and complex structure and process seeks to ensure this.
Climatology Blog
Mostly Agree
Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. ... In summary, the measure of an organisation is not determined by the mere existence of errors, but in how it deals with them when they crop up.
|
|
Environmentalist, Former U.S. Vice President
Agree
The world authority on the climate crisis, the IPCC, after 20 years of detailed study and four unanimous reports, now says that the evidence is “unequivocal.” To those who are still tempted to dismiss the increasingly urgent alarms from scientists around the world, ignore the melting of the north polar ice cap and all of the other apocalyptic warnings from the planet itself, and who roll their eyes at the very mention of this existential threat to the future of the human species, please wake up.
IPCC Chairman
Agree
The IPCC produces key scientific material that is of the highest relevance to policymaking, and is agreed word-by-word by all governments, from the most skeptical to the most confident. This difficult process is made possible by the tremendous strength of the underlying scientific and technical material included in the IPCC reports.
|
Ambiguous or Flip-Flop
|
Politics and Business Magazine
Mostly Agree
It would be surprising if a body studying such a vast and complex area did not get some things wrong. And, by and large, the IPCC does what it was supposed to do: it provides a robust scientific basis for politicians to get on with policymaking.
Politics and Business Magazine
Mostly Disagree
When open criticism began last year, it was airily dismissed by Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC... If he had not heard the claims were wrong by that stage, he should have done. This mixture of sloppiness, lack of communication and high-handedness gives the IPCC’s critics a lot to work with. ... There is an urgent need to study these things, and to synthesise the results in a way that can be relied on.
|
|
Disagree
|
Climatology Professor, Former IPCC Lead Author
Disagree
You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows". This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities. Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I'm identified as an IPCC Lead Author.
Physical Chemist
Disagree
The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.
|
|
Meteorologist
Disagree
Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change. The most glaring example of this bias has been the lack of interest on the IPCC’s part in figuring out to what extent climate change is simply the result of natural, internal cycles in the climate system.
|
|
Former Governor of Alaska (Republican)
Disagree
...these global warming studies that now we're seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.
|
|
Geophysics Professor
Disagree
I think the initial motivation by the IPCC (established in 1988) was good; it was an attempt to promote this particular scientific field. ... But so many [scientists] jumped in, and the media is looking for a disaster story, and the whole thing got out of control.
Science Policy Researcher
Disagree
Not only does McIntyre put the "trick" into its contemporary context, but his efforts also helps us to understand the present spinning by the scientific community suggesting that the "trick" is just science-speak for a clever method. It is not. The "trick" in context is clearly an effort by activist scientists at the highest levels of the IPCC to misrepresent scientific complexity to policy makers and the public.
|
|
Economic Advisor
Disagree
The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the post-War period. So many people, and institutions, have been caught up in the web of deceit, master-minded by environmental activists working through NGOs and their manipulation of the IPCC processes, that the integrity of Western science is seriously at risk.
|
|
Christian Encyclopedia
Disagree
Although it [the IPCC] is generally considered to be an objective, neutral scientific body trying to find out whether or not the global warming theory is true, in actuality it had a biased agenda from the start.
|
|
