Lord Monckton, who is a former science adviser for Maragaret Thatcher, said in 2010: “The IPCC… My policy for the future of that body is that it should be abolished.”
Why is Lord Monckton saying this? We will analyze this through two observations, but first, we need to define the IPCC and what it is. In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s about page, it says:
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC. “
In short, the IPCC is an organization created by the U.N. to study and inform the world on climate change. Unfortunately, the IPCC does much more than that, as we will see in observation one.

Observation One: Facts

Considering that it only gives out information it gets, you might think that no one listens to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but it is to the contrary. John Dehndal said in 2011:
“Similarly, IPCC work looms large in policy-making country-by-country… On account of its UN sponsorship... the IPCC has enormous influence on public policy worldwide.”
We see through this that the IPCC influences policy making in countries around the globe. You might ask if this has actually happened at all in history, and the answer to that is yes. Just recently in 2012 , the EPA passed the “Endangerment Finding Act”. Attorney General Abbot from Texas said this in 2010, when the Endangerment Finding Act had been proposed but not yet passed:
“The Environmental Protection Agency, which issued the endangerment finding [act], "outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy.”… The EPA said its scientific conclusions were based on work by three groups: the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Research Council… Also, the petition says, the groups that the EPA cites for scientific back-up interweave; two have quoted the third, which is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
This proves the point that the IPCC has influence over policy making, even in our own country, the U.S. Why is this bad? We will see that in observation two.

Observation Two: Harms

Why is it a problem that the IPCC has so much influence? First of all, it is corrupt. Let’s take a look at a definition of corruption, defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:
“Improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another. Its forms include bribery, extortion, and the misuse of inside information.”
One of the things corruption is defined as is misuse of information. This is precisely what the IPCC is doing today, as we can see in the following pieces of evidence:

“This tide-gauge record is contradicted by the four other records existing in Hong Kong, and obviously represents a site specific subsidence, a fact well known to local geologists. Nevertheless, a new calibration factor has been introduced in the Figure 7 graph. At the Moscow global warming meeting in 2005, in answer to my criticisms about this “correction,” one of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said, “We had to do so, otherwise there would not be any trend.” To this I replied: “Did you hear what you were saying? This is just what I am accusing you of doing.””

“Since I am an Expert Reviewer of IPCC, I've had an opportunity to review part of the [IPCC’s] 5th Assessment Report, due in 2013. Without revealing deep secrets, I can say that the AR5 uses essentially the same argument and evidence as AR4 -- so let me discuss this "evidence" in some detail. IPCC-AR4 uses only the global surface temperature (GST) record (shown in fig. 9.5 on page 648). It exhibits a rapid rise in 1910-1940, a slight decline in 1940-1975, a sharp "jump" around 1976-77 -- and then a steady increase up to 2000 (except for the temperature "spike" of the 1998 Super-El Niño). No increase is seen after about 2001. Most everyone seems to agree that this earlier increase (1910-1940) is caused by natural forces whose nature the IPCC does not specify. Clearly, the decline of 1940-1975 does not fit the picture of an increasing level of carbon dioxide, nor do the "jump" and "spike." So the IPCC uses the increase between 1978 and 2000 as evidence for human (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW). Their argument is somewhat strained, and their evidence is questionable.”

“[Dr. Gray says,] "Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning."”

These three pieces of evidence show that the IPCC is misusing information. What is this? This is corruption. The IPCC is inherently corrupt. All this causes flawed policy. Remember that the IPCC has enormous policy influence, even in the U.S. If the IPCC is corrupting information that it publishes to countries such as ours, and this corrupt information is used for a policy, therefore the policy will be corrupt as well, and causes harm. What is this harm? The harm is economic downturn. We saw this happen in the infamous Himalayan Glacier Scandal:
“And exactly what climatic U.S. national security threats were they so worried about? One big concern security planners highlighted at the time was that global warming would melt the massive Himalayan glaciers. This would first cause rivers to flood… then dry up once the glaciers retreated, endangering tens of millions of people in lowland Bangladesh. Retired Air Marshal A.K. Singh, a former commander in India’s air force, foresaw this leading to mass migrations across national borders, with militaries (including ours) becoming involved. This dire Himalayan glacier calamity was predicted by a preeminent international climate science organization, none other than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Who could doubt their competence and veracity? Well, actually, many scientists have good reasons to do so. And in this instance as it turned out, and as IPCC later admitted, the Himalayan prediction was completely fabricated with absolutely no supporting science by a fellow who worked for the IPCC’s director.”
We see this almost happened, but didn’t. Either way, it proves how IPCC’s corrupted reports create corrupt policy, which causes economic downturn. If we remember back to the Endangerment Finding Act, which was a policy almost totally influenced by the IPCC, we see this economic downturn happening now. The Heritage Foundation published the following in 2010:
“On January 14, [the EPA took] the first major step of that process—[the endangerment finding act]—took effect, and with it the obligation to move forward with what could easily become the most expensive and intrusive set of regulations in history. The implementation of these rules will have a significant impact on the economy and small businesses, even if the “tailoring rule”—a legally dubious attempt by EPA to rein in the costs—survives the expected legal challenges. Congress can and should stop this regulatory overreach.”
Later on the article states:
“Aside from the compliance costs, there are the actual economic costs the regulations will impose. In 2008, The Heritage Foundation completed an economic analysis of the EPA’s plan to regulate CO2 absent the tailoring rule. Between 2010 and 2029, the regulations would cause $7 trillion in lost economic activity and a loss of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs by 2029.”
Remember, this act was influenced by the IPCC’s corrupt reports.
In summary, why should the IPCC be abolished? Well we have the fact, which is that IPCC influences policy worldwide. The IPCC should be abolished because:
• It misuses information, which is corruption, therefore the IPCC is corrupt.
• It publishes corrupt reports.
• Countries bases policy off these corrupt reports.
• The policy is therefore corrupt and it causes economic downturn.

In the end, we see that the root of these problems is the IPCC. The corrupt actions of the IPCC has caused Dr. Vincent Gray, who has reviewed every IPCC report and logged over 3,500 comments in them, and who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry, to cry out: "The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt, the only reform I could envisage would be its abolition." That is precisely why we should abolish it.

Sources Cited
(In numerical order)
1. By Jerome R. Corsi, (World Net Daily Senior Staff Reporter), Quoting Lord Monckton, (former science advisor for Margaret Thatcher) Published by the World Net Daily on May 18, 2010 http://www.wnd.com/2010/05/155701/

2. IPCC’S about page: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml

3. By John Dendahl, (Journalist, was Chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party) “The (infamous) IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” Published by John Dendahl; Internally Dated, to be no older that 2011 http://www.johndendahl.com/ipcc.html

4. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) “U.S. Court of Appeals - D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA's Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act” Internally dated to June 26, 2012. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/ghgcourtdecision.html

5. From PolitiFact, Quoting Attorney General Abbott, (Attorney General of Texas) “Attorney General Abbott says EPA's endangerment finding based on outsourced science from scandal-plagued group” Published by PolitiFact.com February 16, 2010 [brackets added for clarification] http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/may/10/greg-abbott/atto…

6. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corruption

7. Nils-Axel Mörner, (Oceanographic expert; studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for 45 years; retired director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University) “There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!” Pubished by the NC-20 in the Fall of 2010 http://www.nc-20.com/pdf/Great\%20Sea\%20Level\%20Humbug.pdf

8. Dr. S. Fred Singer, (PhD in physics, Director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, was founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service; expert in remote sensing and satellites; former vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere) “Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name” Publsihed by the American Thinker on Febuary 29, 2012 http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_sk…

9. By Lawrence Solomon, (Executive Director of Energy Probe and the Urban Renaissance Institute) citing: Vincent Gray, (PhD in Physical Chemistry, He has published more than 100 scientific papers and authored the book, The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Dr. Gray has participated in all of the science reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in 2006 was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center) “IPCC Too Blinkered and Corrupt to Save” Published by Financial Post in 2007 http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c239…

10. http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-i…

11. Prof. Larry Bell, (Professor at the University of Houston; director of the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head of the graduate program in space architecture) “Defense Secretary Leon Panetta On Defensive Over Global Climate Warm-Mongering” Published by Forbes magazine on May 13, 2012 http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/13/defense-secretary-leon…

12. By Ben Lieberman, (Senior Policy Analyst, Energy and Environment) “Small Business Impact of the EPA Endangerment Finding” Published by The Heritage Foundation on January 20 2010 [brackets added for clarification[ http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/small-business-impact-…