We depend on all our great readers to keep Salvo going!
Follow Salvo online
In the 1970s, cover stories in Time and Newsweek magazines, along with books such as The Cooling and The New Ice Age, warned of the threat of global cooling, but the concept didn't catch on. In 1988, warming fever was launched when Dr. James Hansen of NASA, in a hearing room intentionally manipulated to be warm and humid, testified before Congress that "the greenhouse effect is here and is affecting our climate now."1 Two months later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was born, the "child" of two United Nations parent bodies—the UN Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization.
Article originally appeared in
The IPCC's role is "to assess . . . information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." In simpler words, it surveys the scientific literature on climate change and then writes up reports telling us what it all means and what should be done about it. The reports are officially called Assessment Reports, but have informally come to be known as the Climate Bible. Cited by some 200 governments around the world, the IPCC is a major reason energy costs are rising and carbon dioxide is seen as a pollutant. Since IPCC's inception, six reports have been generated, and a Nobel Peace Prize granted to, in equal parts, the IPCC and Al Gore.
Reason for Surveillance:
Two things are especially important to note about the IPCC. First, its stated objective of "understanding" the scientific basis of human-induced climate change assumes that human-induced climate change is real and that there exists some scientific basis supporting it. Both are debatable, but to question either is to set oneself at odds with the IPCC's very reason for existence.
Second, the qualifier, intergovernmental, is important. The IPCC is a panel born of, driven by, and beholden to politics, not science. The IPCC does not ask science academies to nominate experts in their fields and then fill positions from there. Nominations are sought from governments, which means that the political philosophy wielding power in participating governments influences (if not controls) IPCC personnel. Former chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri explicitly confirmed this in 2013: "We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. . . . [We are] at their beck and call."2
So what we have with the IPCC is an authority-laundering outfit, functioning under the guise of science as an objective advisor to governments when it is in fact appointed by and subject to those governments. This undermines legitimate science and, to the extent that the panel deigns to dictate from on high how the rest of the world should live, constitutes attempted tyranny.
After two years' investigation, Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise wrote a scathing exposé of the IPCC, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, which documents the kinds of malleable and arbitrary standards, inherent conflicts of interest, and ideology-bound groupthink we have come to associate with cults.
Indeed, when Pachauri resigned amid allegations of misconduct in 2015, after thirteen years chairing the panel, he formally affirmed his devotion to the cause in explicitly religious language. "For me the protection of Planet Earth . . . is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."3
This, folks, is a religion better kept out of both government and science.•
If you enjoy Salvo, please consider giving an online donation! Thanks for your continued support.