IPPC replaces head with economist

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

The politics of climate science: The IPCC has selected an economist, Hoesung Lee, to replace the disgraced railroad engineer, Rajendra Pachauri, who had previously been its leader.

That neither Pachauri nor Lee is an actual climate scientist, nor have they ever even done any climate science, tells us all we need to know about the IPCC. It is a political body, designed to push the political agenda of the advocates of human-caused global warming regardless of the scientific evidence. And that political agenda has nothing to do with science or climate, but using science and climate as a tool to impose Marxist fascist rule on everyone.

And if you doubt me, read this article in the science journal Nature describing the possible directions the IPCC will take under Lee’s leadership.



  • Cotour

    Actually an economist is probably a more fitting profession for the head of IPCC management, the article points out that the IPCC is a PROCESS.

    ” to increase participation by experts from developing nations and to explore ways to involve business and industry in the IPCC process.”

    proc·ess1, noun: 1. a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

    The IPCC is about a particular end, and that end was decided long ago, they are just involved in how to accomplish their projected particular end.

  • Edward


    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a panel of the United Nations. They may have a process (which seems to include drawing scientific conclusions based upon magazine articles written by non-scientists), but is that process any good?

    Part of their process also involves writing an Executive Summary (which is what most people read, because they get bored reading the rest of the report) that contradicts the rest of their report. This gives the news media the impression that the report says something that is not even supported by the shaky evidence in the rest of the report.

    With an economist in charge, are we likely to get better science out of them?

    You are correct, Cotour. They have a particular end. The IPCC was founded as a biased organization, assuming that humans are responsible for some amount of climate change that must be adapted to or mitigated:
    “to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”.

    Adaptation or mitigation. Judging by proposals coming from the UN, it does not matter which. The UN obviously is seeking to increase its power over us (individually and nationally) so that they can direct us as to how to adapt-to or mitigate the unproved human-induced climate change.

  • Cotour

    I think we are getting a glimps into what is at the heart of at least one of the side elements of this Process in today’s news.


  • Cotour

    Cruz confronts Sierra Club about “earth burning up” testimony.


    Drama, panic, extremism, emotion, that’s what sells, actual hard data is boring as hell and you can not get anyone to do anything right now if it is not perceived as being an emergency.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *