The conclusion is worth reading again and again.
Full testimony at link below.
Format changed by editor (me) for easier reading:
"The content of these (UNs IPCC) climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals - I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers.
.
The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated.
.
This establishment includes the same individuals who become the “experts” called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency.
As outlined in my previous testimonies, these “experts” become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work.
.
This becomes an obvious conflict of interest.
.
But with the luxury of having the “last word” as “expert” authors of the reports, alternative views vanish.
.
This is not a process that provides the best information to the peoples’ representatives.
.
The US Congress must have the full range of views on issues such as climate change which are:
(a) characterized by considerable ambiguity (see model results),
(b) used to promote regulatory actions which will be economically detrimental to the American people and, most ironically,
(c) will have no impact on whatever the climate will do."
J. R. Christy, PhD
February 2, 2016
House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
Full testimony, and source of quote above:
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf