The IPCC is the UN organizations that puts together Assessment Reports every 5 years (we're due for AR6 in a couple years). These reports are supposed to document the current best understanding of climate science.
What is particularly interesting is how long ago all this started. What's not surprising is that the driving force back then was a scramble for research grant funding by scientists:
This was almost 50 years ago, which is plenty of time for a scientific bureaucracy to grow up around this topic. Remember, where you have bureaucracy, you have Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Now think about the often repeated "Scientific consensus" on global warming. Think on the funding that feeds the scientific bureaucracy. How on earth could there not be a consensus?Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
Of course, that consensus says precisely nothing on whether global warming is true or not.
RTWT. It's long, and detailed, and damning.