Climate scientists felt compelled to oversimplify findings
"The problem stems from the IPCC's thorny mission: Take sophisticated and sometimes inconclusive science, and boil it down to usable advice for lawmakers," concludes the newspaper, based on its interviews with scientists and review of hundreds of panel documents and emails.
"Inconclusive science"? You mean this is still an unproved theory? You mean the IPCC had to lie to the public to convince them of the problem until they could forge enough evidence to support their position? Is this why the IPCC had to use anecdotal stories in place of data and research because the science doesn't prove the theory? So this issue was too important to bother with the truth? So these issues are too important to wait and find out if it really is a problem?
I guess now we know that fraud, deceit, lies are now a standard part of the scientific method, as well as the standard operating procedures of the United Nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment