The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a political body, subsidiary to the UN. It was created in 1988 in order to “tell the governments what to do,” in the words of Mostafa Tolba, the Executive Director of UNEP at the time. IPCC officials are appointed by governments that are members of the UN, and their assessment reports are subject to authorization by all the participating governments. The IPCC is not a scientific authority.
IPCC-produced texts contain lies and are intended to harm the USA, as well as its friends and allies. Since the mid-1990’s, at least one government in a state of war with the United States of America has been a member of the IPCC. Any actions having the intent to aid the IPCC to inflict harm on the US, including alleging that IPCC texts have any authority on the territory of the United States or in respect to the United States, committed by a person owing his or her loyalty to the United States, might fall under the definition of treason in Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Readers in other countries should consult their respective laws.
Nothing in the paragraph above is directed toward persons who merely cite IPCC reports in their scientific (or even pseudo-scientific) papers, or whose papers have been cited by IPCC. In the past, some distinguished scientists contributed to IPCC reports and even participated in its activities as Lead Authors. Some content in the IPCC reports (especially the full reports of Working Group I) is scientifically accurate. Nevertheless, the IPCC is dominated by anti-American governments, radical environmentalists, and third-rate scholars. Any accurate content is mixed up with distortions and lies, produced maliciously or out of incompetence, even in the full reports of Working Group I.
Working scientists should also be aware that the IPCC reports are not and have never been peer-reviewed. IPCC does submit its drafts for review by independent scientists, but the IPCC authors themselves decide whether to accept or reject reviewers’ criticism. The full reports must also incorporate changes that are made into so-called Summaries for Policy Makers by government representatives.
The IPCC reports do not represent any kind of consensus of the scientists and non-scientists that have participated in their preparation. The majority of the participating scientists have no say at all about the use of their contributions, and they all can be overruled by government representatives and political appointees, many of whom in the pockets of radical environmental interests. The public and statesmen should also be aware that the content of the reports is further distorted in the direction of increasing alarm by the media and enviro-advocates.