The BBC did a good radio drama on it called Smoking Guns. It is available on BBC Sounds.
Regards, Kevin On Sun, 19 Mar 2023, 21:19 Robert Chris, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Tom > > I'm just beginning to engage in this thread that's been running for a few > days now. > > Do you have evidence or can you refer to credible sources that corroborate > the statements you made below. The point I'm trying to get hold of is not > whether there's political bias in the IPCC's work, that is relatively easy > to substantiate. But whether it was a deliberate and intended act by some > actors to slant the the scientific analysis in a particular way. If it > was, who were these actors, when did they do this, how did they do it, how > was it sustained, and so on. > > The IPCC process involves thousands of scientists. My understanding is > that the IPCC is purely a review body and does not undertake any primary > research itself, although it may provoke research in areas that it regards > as worthy of further investigation. I'm reluctant to posit a conspiracy > theory in which this whole process has been subverted by dark forces, but > if that's what's being proposed, it would be helpful to have some evidence > of it. > > We know that the SPMs are subjected to considerable political editing. > While this might impact the way that the media report the findings, those > that take the trouble to engage with the detail often find it to be a mine > of really useful information and references to the original research. > > In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I am tempted to > regard the IPCC's considerable shortcomings as emergent properties of its > structure and the sociopolitical context in which it is operating, and not > the result of some malevolent cabal of controllers. > > But if you know something different, please share. > > Regards > > Robert > On 16/03/2023 17:00, Tom Goreau wrote: > > IPCC was given a *political* mission, make projections what will happen > for a decade or two while governments are in power, not a *scientific* > mission to determine what the actual impacts would be to the planet and > humanity afterwards (warming in the pipeline). > > > > That flawed time scale was deliberately built by governments into IPCC’s > mandate at the start, IPCC was intentionally *designed* to underestimate > the problem, and any potential liabilities. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/a14da076-9299-406c-ce95-919d98dd7f31%40gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/a14da076-9299-406c-ce95-919d98dd7f31%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAE%3DUiezhqo-DeuJJKLhbbdsuaG6SfWShZ8gBN6eAtiMAQjY14A%40mail.gmail.com.
