Nobel IPCC contributor speaks out.

I think political agendas have been interfering with or driving science for a long time, which is why there is so much junk science being bandied about as it it were the Gospel. Global warming isn't the first time this has been done, it has been going on for a while. The whole second hand smoke myth is directly attributable to individuals with an agenda who manipulated data in order to cause a desired conclusion to be drawn for the purpose of creating and raising "public awareness" in the goal for a smoke free society. The so-called dangers of second hand smoke are as misrepresented and fabricated as the man made global warming alarmist claims are, with the same goal of raising public awareness in order to influence public opinion and then influencing political action. Everyone seems to respect scientific opinions and treat them as facts. They are not, and I personally have very little regard for scientists in general. They have proven time and again that they care more about political agendas and doing whatever it takes to ensure they get the funding they want, even if it involves altering their conclusions to something that the data does not support in order to achieve the desired results. In my opinion scientists are no more dependable and trustworthy as anyone else is, nor do their opinions mean much.

Hello Red, Though it is only speculation, I suspect that Christopher Monckton will suffer severely for positing such volatile, vile truth. You get the gold star, Red. This opinion is a great find! I have added it to my file on this man made global warming farce. Thanks for sharing it! What do I think about politics interfering with science? Why should science be any different than any other arena fueled by money? Wherever there is money, there is politics. At this point, I could care less if Al Gore persists in his fraudulent professional career. What I do care about is preventing our government, and global governance as a whole, from capitalizing on this charade. Whether in good conscience, or as co-conspirators in this broad deception, government officials must not be allowed to legislate man-made global warming into a political and therefore a taxable reality. Mr. Monckton's personal involvement, knowledge, and commitment to the truth of this will aid us in preventing this lie from causing too many waves of potential and real damage.

I dont think science is interfering with politics here.I think the politicians all over the world have to wake up to the crude data that science is giving them about global warming.Instead of just pushing aside tons of reports and conclusive evidences that our planet is dying, they must draft proposals and act in the right direction to save the planet.

We just need more people to see this stuff. More often the other side is shown or well bombarded on the world at large. Also shaming and crude tactics is used on anyone even remotely disagreeing with the agenda. That's a major problem and it should alarm a good number of people. Sadly, it doesn't because again, there's a monopoly on news, information and media (yes there are alternatives, but they still aren't as heavily consumed as other forms of media and information). There have been people from weather.com, meteorologists, various scientists, ex-IPCC (or people who aren't really part of it) and various reports pointing out other various arguments against global warming or different reasons of climate change. Unfortunately people do not take it seriously and those on the other side of the debate do anything to shut down the debate as I've said. The fact the peace prize was awarded to them despite the debate, despite missing data, despite some obvious political points (not just this decade, but a lack of it last decade, and a different premise the decade before that)... despite it all, the group somehow retains all respect and awards. It is rather discouraging. The worst part is, the changes some people on the IPCC and related interests are actually failing or turning out to be **giant** fleecing games (Spain, Italy and Japan can attest to that...). But isn't it "greaaaat..." though, either change "must happen" and the economy, lifestyles of the countries take a major hit... or if you are under a world committment and don't make the protocols you pay up... and your economy takes a major hit that way (and whatever hasty or half-baked "changes" occured along the way).

Not too much of a surprise given that it is a governmental agency. Everything run by any government is about a specific agenda. Only results supporting that agenda are given credit. Why this agenda exists isn't quite clear to me, but I suspect it is to either gain more control over the population at large and/or to spur new, profitable private industries at the expense of the tax payers. One of the scientists for one of the 4 IPCC reports has stated his own observations and opinions on the IPCC just a page before the one you posted. http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/current-affairs/91718-scientific-censorship.html The last sentence of paragraph 4 is particularly interesting. I think it tells all.