The recent scandal involving leaked-mails from the IPCC, showed there was a deliberate attempt to prevent scientific data on global warming from being released. There were also attempts to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request and attempts to silence "man made" global warming skeptics. It looks like this scandal goes even further.
The New York Times ran an article titled: "U.N. Admits Error in Overstating Himalayan Glacier Melt". According to the NY Times article "… the IPCC, the U.N. body charged with investigating climate change, retracted that claim after it emerged that its predictions of a sudden melt weren’t based on peer-reviewed evidence, but instead on an article that appeared in the popular science magazine New Scientist in 1999." More evidence that the U.N. based it’s political agenda for Cap-n-Trade on junk science.
Peter Foster writing in Canada’s National posts goes on to say, "the error showed how the IPCC’s task has always been not objectively to examine science but to make the case for man-made climate change by any means available."
According to the International Baccalaureate’s official web site, the 2011 Geography syllabus states that it is designed to encompass U.N.’s millennium development goals. Global warming is listed as on one of those goals.
This is the problem that occurs when a school decides to adopt a program that’s riddled with an agenda from a political organization.
It seems to me that if we seek to graduate students who are proficient in science, it would be worthwhile to leave the U.N. junk science out of the equation. Why push a political agenda at the expense of authentic science?
All one has to do is visit the IB web site: http://www.ibo.org/facts/annualreview/2008/documents/IBReview08.pdf and go to page 12 and read it for yourself.
