I am sure there are many basically honest scientists who participate in the IPCC process. But that doesn’t matter if the mere fact of their participation is used to support summaries that they had no hand in writing or that even contradict what they wrote.
It is hard to imagine misrepresentation of the scientists’ work on such a grand scale without a huge outcry from those same scientists. They are not in forced labor camps. They know what is being said in their name, and they have the means to publicize that misrepresentation if they want to. Besides, you don’t have to confine yourself to the IPCC summaries. You can read the original papers written by the actual scientists and published through independent journals. Is the IPCC like the Freemasons? Do they secretly control the world?
That doesn’t matter if … the government which appointed them expect a certain result. etc.
Why should we assume that governments want or expect a certain result? I fail to see how it is a benefit to a government to tell the people that things are worse than they really are. Don’t governments generally do the opposite? They tell the people things are better than they really are.
As you well know, the self-correcting mechanism of science sometimes takes decades or even centuries to work.
That depends on the importance of the theory. The Piltdown Man hoax took 40 years to fully expose (even though it was questioned at the outset), partly because it depended on observation of one small collection, which was only available for inspection by a limited number of individuals. Global warming, on the other hand, is the focus of many more scientists, and anyone can go out and gather their own data. They do not have to all crowd around one skull in a museum.
Besides, I wasn’t just commenting on scientific self-correction. I was commenting on how the mere knowledge of this self-correction would motivate a scientist to avoid proclaiming what he knows is false. Even if it takes 40 years to prove man wrong, that man right now will not want that to be his legacy. Perhaps Dawson thought there would be less critical examination of his Piltdown “find”, and he would get away with it forever. Not so with global warming. Everyone knows the truth will come out.
And isn’t it tempting to run with the herd, even for a scientist?
That type of person is not likely to go into science in the first place.
Where is your evidence that scientists are such rugged individualists and contrarians?
You don’t have to be rugged. You just have to be right. That is the beauty of science. As for being contrarians, the history of science literature is full of scientists commenting critically on the work of other scientists.
I sure don’t see it, especially in climate science.
It could be because of some malicious control enforced by the IPCC, or it could be that the evidence just doesn’t support a very contrarian view. I also do not see much scientific dissent over the theory of gravity.
I don’t see why you think discrediting the IPCC is beating on dead horse. Don’t you agree that they are the gold standard authority?
Gold standard - yes. Authority - no. They may be considered the “gold standard” only because their work speaks for itself. Or not, if you happen to believe that the IPCC’s work is rubbish. In any case, it doesn’t matter because the IPCC is not alone in claiming global warming.
Isn’t it supremely relevant to a juror, a true seeker of the truth, to know that the star witness in the case against human CO2 emissions is wholly unworthy of belief?
In keeping with your trial analogy, I would simply discount this one witness, and listen to the others. They may not be “stars”, but they are reliable witnesses.
