'It's better to be at the table than on the menu' is a commonly used idiom in politics, business, and negotiations, meaning that it is crucial to be actively involved in decision-making processes rather than being the subject of decisions made by others. The idea is simple enough – stay inside a flawed institution to wield influence rather than bolt and shout from the sidelines.
Bjørn Lomborg argued for the case to 'be at the table' in a Washington Post op-ed last week, urging the United States to remain in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rather than follow through on President Trump's instincts to withdraw. Lomborg argues that for a mere $1.8 million annually – pocket change in Washington's bloated budget – the US can leverage its position as the largest donor to push for "honesty, cost-effectiveness and balance" in the IPCC's work. It's a pragmatic pitch, one that appeals to those who believe in incremental reform over radical rupture.
But here's the rub: what if the game is so rigged, so profoundly dysfunctional, that staying in only props up the rot? In such cases, exiting isn't surrender – it could be a strategic masterstroke, a way to delegitimise the entire charade and force real change from without.
This is precisely the case with the IPCC, an organisation whose apex has long devolved into a pulpit for alarmist prophecies, distorting science in its 'Summary for Policymakers' to serve the Net Zero agendas of European elites. Lomborg's advice,
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
What an outstanding article, Wonderful.
Yes, we had the same ignorant drivel about leaving the EU and losing influence over the Single Market. The Single Market – or Common Regulatory Area – actually only creates around 25% of its regulations as the remainder are replicating international regulations. By leaving, the UK could be at the table for the formulation of those 75% global regulations, and of course no longer be subject to the political EU Directives.
the IPCC was meant to provide objective assessments of climate science.
Schoolboy error early on. The IPCC was created to back up the UNFCCC by providing the evidence of anthropogenic climate change. It therefore excludes papers that contradict this and although it claims everything in ‘peer reviewed’ it was shown by Donna LaFramboise that some chapters contained masses of propaganda from eco groups that were light on facts. Early on their reports, many of those involved sued to have their names removed because the report was a travesty of science and from then on nobody pre-eminent in their field contributes to the IPCC reports, in fact they have been rejected as lead authors. The summary for each report is for some odd reason available long before you can check the actual report it alleges to summarise but by then the legacy media have lost interest and the politically influenced summary has done its job.
Correct. —The remit was to look for things that would seem to indicate human influence on climate while ignoring everything that didn’t. —-A Political Body, not a scientific one. Infact most people at the IPCC are not scientists, they are assorted bureaucrats, government people, politicians etc. ——But then you know that already.
“It’s better to be at the table than on the menu”———Except when it comes to the UN Political Body called the IPCC you will never be listened to if your view does not align with the climate change narrative. The IPCC is littered with cases of scientists and experts leaving the IPCC because of not being listened to. This organization is a Political one and its conclusions are all entirely Political. The whole excuse of climate change and CO2 is about control of the worlds wealth, resources and YOU. —But don’t take my word for it, here is what a lead author at the IPCC said in a rare moment of lucidity a few years ago ———“One has to free oneself from the illusion that climate policy is environmental policy anymore, we redistribute the worlds wealth via climate policy”—And where in the wealthiest country in the world? —–The USA. So climate policy is about redistributing wealth from the good old USA. —–Trump knows this and isn’t falling for the eco socialist crap that pretends to be about the climate.
So Al Gore, Barak Obama and Joe Biden were all Europeans, ‘doctor’?
“Founded in 1988 under the UN umbrella, the IPCC was meant to provide objective assessments of climate science.” No, the IPCC as set up by Maurice Strong was corrupt from the outset as I describe here: https://metatron.substack.com/p/debunking-the-climate-change-hoax.
You mention Thomas Malthus who argued that populations grow exponentially. In his seminal work Charles Darwin used simple Maths to debunk Malthus by a Reductio ad Absurdum argument. Unfortunately Malthusians still exist.
There’s a simpler reason why this OMG! Too many people! claim is bunk: Human population cannot grow past the point of earth being capable to support it because people lacking access to the resources which would enable them to stay alive are going to die.
Growth of the human population of the earth is a consequence of humans as a species becoming better at ensuring their own survival. It’s a measure of our incredible success as slowly developing, fairly immobile and long living species. We aren’t locusts which suddenly appear in great numbers and keep moving quickly to find new sources of food.
Lomborg still believes in ‘man-made’ CO2 warming. Therefore his utterly unscientific opinion is frankly worthless. He’s another grifter.
I left my workplace union several decades ago. In my view the leaders were only concerned with political issues, like the fate of postal workers in Chile or Amnesty International, and cared little for my workplace concerns. I tried to make the political issues debatable at a local level but failed. So I left, saved myself many monthly contributions, and was happy that if I found myself in dispute with my employer I could fund my own independent solicitor from those savings.
It’s only worth staying in an organisation to reform it from within if there is any reasonable prospect of success.
You’re probably right Zeb. There is no limit to Starmer’s stupidity, his devotion to globalism or his determination to bankrupt Britain.
Edit – supposed to be a reply to Zebeded of course.
I’m sure that the British government will step in with replacement funding just like they did with the WHO. Policy based evidence cannot come at too expensive a price.