> honest answers about the sources and dangers of a pandemic virus

The accuracy of answers about the source of a virus was very much dependent on the level of openness and cooperation from the jurisdiction in which the virus originated. Climate change, on the other hand, does not have a single geographical source, and therefore the IPCC is less limited in the information available to it.

Similarly, I suspect that the WHO's early mistakes or inaccuracies in assessing the dangers of the virus were due to the fact that most of the early cases and mortality data were being collected in a single jurisdiction.

WHO deliberately chooses to kowtow to China and exclude Taiwan, the country with one of the best records on Covid-19 and with the experience and knowledge to fight it successfully. At some point sacrificing public health to accommodate a genocidal regime becomes a matter of institutional failure. Don't waste your breath making excuses for them. The WHO's "inaccuracies" go far beyond believing CCP propaganda.

The WHO is part of the UN. The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan. It's as simple as that.

You're experiencing the 'criticising the CCP is forbidden' backlash with these downvotes, it's one of the HN voting system failures.

But you've hit on a problem: can we maintain global cooperative institutions in the face of an expansionist hegemonic power like China? I don't think we can, because anything controversial and it gets ripped apart.

The US and allied countries have their own national organizations, but even the EU is compromised on a number of issues, such as creeping fascism (Poland and Hungary) and the inability to take action against member states, or even coordinate in a pandemic. Even NATO is compromised by expansion to include such countries, and Turkey as well. So I'm questioning how useful large group multi-lateralism is for an organization like the WHO.

No he isn't. He is experiencing the "people will downvote dumb criticisms of climate science". The WHO's response to the pandemic is not in any way evidence that the IPCC is untrustworthy after decades of thorough study of climate change. That's the reason for downvotes, not because he criticized the CCP.

I'm sorry, he doesn't mention climate or the IPCC?

Edit: And I just scanned the last week of posts and can't see mention of anything like that. You're confusing with user koolba.

Large multinational organizations can have significant value, as NATO and the UN have shown in the past. But once the "regulatory capture" effect happens and the UN becomes a platform for genocidal dictatorships to spew anti-Semitic propaganda, we should discard that organization in favor of something better (even if "better" hypothetically had to be "nothing"). A truly global organization is, as you've explained, probably impossible because the bullies won't participate in a fair organization. But large regional organizations can still have value, as long as we recognize their limits and don't look to them for leadership that they can't adequately provide.

What we have seen with the WHO, and what you can also expect from the IPCC, is a minimization of the problem. The incentives for such organization are always to downplay the size of the risk, to present optimistic estimates as worse-case scenarios.

So yes, most likely the IPCC is wrong or lying to some extent: global warming is almost certainly a much bigger problem than their official estimates.

> So yes, most likely the IPCC is wrong or lying to some extent: global warming is almost certainly a much bigger problem than their official estimates.

If official, peer-reviewed reports from international agencies are "wrong or lying," what better sources would you recommend?

Or more importantly..

If they're wrong, why aren't any of the groups involved catching these errors and correcting them?

If they're lying, you're suggesting a multi-decade, international conspiracy spanning thousands of people that threatens humanity as a whole where the watchdogs are either complicit or not competent enough to catch. I hope you have something to back that up.

I'm not claiming some huge conspiracy. I'm just claiming that, just like the WHO initially downplayed the risks of Covid19, so too I expect the IPCC is likely downplaying to some extent the risks from global warming.

This doesn't require some complex conspiracy, just some natural amount of wanting to tell people (heads of state) what they want to hear, some amount of funding and promoting less alarmist research, some amount of feeling like they have a duty to avoid extreme rhetoric etc.

I hope it's clear, I'm not claiming that I know all this for a fact. But it is how international organizations seem to operate in general. You would definitely not expect a major international inter-governmental organization to present a position that would be called extreme position, even if that extreme position may be right.

Didn't the who correct those mistakes within weeks?