This article addresses the relationship between science and propaganda using the Climate Change controversy as a study model. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the recognized leader on...This article addresses the relationship between science and propaganda using the Climate Change controversy as a study model. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the recognized leader on this model issuing multiple Assessment Reports. This review begins with a discussion of the basics—what is propaganda and how does it work, followed by whether the IPCC adopted or rejected it. Next explored is how propaganda can be seamlessly fused into “report writing” in a way that arouses and makes interesting humdrum details. Some unexpected results emerged from current and historical observation data involving the Greenhouse theory, CO2 sources, ocean pH, sea levels, and ice balances. The final section confronts whether “a point of view” constrains objectivity in favor of outcome. The overall conclusion is that the earth is boringly healthy.展开更多
文摘This article addresses the relationship between science and propaganda using the Climate Change controversy as a study model. The United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the recognized leader on this model issuing multiple Assessment Reports. This review begins with a discussion of the basics—what is propaganda and how does it work, followed by whether the IPCC adopted or rejected it. Next explored is how propaganda can be seamlessly fused into “report writing” in a way that arouses and makes interesting humdrum details. Some unexpected results emerged from current and historical observation data involving the Greenhouse theory, CO2 sources, ocean pH, sea levels, and ice balances. The final section confronts whether “a point of view” constrains objectivity in favor of outcome. The overall conclusion is that the earth is boringly healthy.
