|
I think given 18 years, the IPCC could locate some evidence against global warming if it was being published. They don't do the research themselves, by the way-- they just report what is going on within the primary literature. As for bias, the IPCC is heavily biased... towards industrialized countries who tend to benefit the least.
The makeup: Brazil, Japan, Mauritius, United Republic of Tanzania, India, Kuwait, Bolivia, Chile, Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Norway, Syria. Each country appoints one expert-- the US sent someone from the EPA.
If you don't trust the UN's motives for whatever reasons, you can take comfort in the fact that every major US scientific organization relevant to climate study (listed in the first Science link mentioned previously (*)) has done independent review and come to the same conclusion: Climate change is real, significant, and man-made.
Scientists are notorious skeptics. If you ever end up at a conference, Q&A sessions often make the TMS "flames" sound like high tea. If it was one guy or one group trumpeting this stuff, I would be skeptical too. But there comes a point of massive, overwhelming consensus where saying "There is very little responsible science that supports global warming." is the policy equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The more people believe that falsehood, the longer the government can get away with ducking pollution controls and reform.
(*): Don't make me bust out the vide supra.
|