By Dr. John Happs
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Carl Sagan : The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
The media and many politicians from around the world actually believed and proclaimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an independent scientific body comprising the world’s best climate scientists. We were told:
“The IPCC is an intergovernmental organization established jointly in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Agency (a specialized agency of the United Nations). Its mission is to collect, assess, and publish the latest scientific findings on climate change.”
There is ample evidence to show that the IPCC is the “Trojan Horse” for the UN’s environmental/socialist aims. The IPCC masquerades as a rigorous independent team of the world’s top climate scientists whilst taking advantage of the low level of scientific understanding amongst the media, the public and politicians.
Following two years of research into the IPCC, investigative journalist Donna Laframboise concludes that:
“Almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is actually true.”
“What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”
The UN needed to persuade the public and (especially) politicians that the planet is warming dangerously and carbon dioxide emissions are responsible and must be curtailed.
Knowing that most people would not read (and understand) the technical reports produced by the IPCC, UN officials made sure that the media and politicians would read the Summaries For Policymakers. Those summaries could be “massaged” by UN officials to ensure that the early messages from the IPCC would be sufficiently alarmist to make developed nations feel guilty about their carbon dioxide emissions and pay climate compensation into the UN’s Green Climate Fund, to be passed on to developing nations.
The following examples of questionable IPCC science and process are provided with appropriate links to enable the reader to access further information and decide for themselves if such examples represent carelessness or deliberate fraud.
1. The IPCC framed a problem when there was no empirical evidence to show that a problem exists.
Without any evidence, the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), specifically defined climate change in terms of human activity:
“A change in climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is, in addition to natural climate variability, observed over considerable time periods.” (My emphasis)
It appeared from the outset that the IPCC would give serious consideration only to those aspects of climate change that might support the UN’s promotion of human-induced global warming. See:
The IPCC were prepared to change climate history:
But they failed to convince the scientific community:
2. The IPCC claimed that over 4,000 scientists contributed to the IPCC reports. This claim is demonstrably false.
In 2007 the IPCC claimed that human activity is contributing significantly to global warming and that this claim was supported by up to 4,000 IPCC contributing scientists. This claim was widely publicised and repeated by politicians around the world.
Dr. John McLean pointed out that thiscore claim was actually endorsed by only 5 reviewers of the IPCC’s 2007 report. Additionally, there is some doubt that they were actually scientists. It appears that the entire catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmism was promoted by a small, incestuous political/ideological group. See how IPCC contributing scientists exaggerate global warming:
Few IPCC members were climate scientists:
Politics drives the IPCC process rather than science:
Claims that over 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists say human activity has a significant influence on climate are wrong:
3. The IPCC produces Summaries for Policymakers (SPM) that are made available to the media and politicians. UN officials instruct authors to make the technical reports conform to the summaries that often contradict what the scientists have written.
The following instruction is given to IPCC authors:
“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.” See:
There is no evidence to support the UN’s claim that there is a discernible human influence on global climate:
Senator Timothy Wirth and NASA’s Dr. James Hansen conspired to start the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scare in the same year (1988) that the IPCC was born:
IPCC contributing scientist Dr. Vincent Gray described how the IPCC produced 5 reports to persuade governments that their carbon dioxide emissions control global temperature:
The IPCC’s computer-based predictions have been widely criticised:
IPCC contributing scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen observed:
“Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO’s and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.”
4. The former IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri publicly declared his bias about climate change.
The IPCC’s former Chairman, the late Dr. Rajendra Pachauri clearly stated his position on transforming the world’s economy and his desire to demonize carbon dioxide:
“Unless we live in harmony with nature, unless we are able to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy sources and until we change our life styles, the world will increasingly become unfit for human habitation.”
Pachauri wrote the Foreword to a 2008 Greenpeace paper: Energy Revolution: A Sustainable Global Energy Outlook.
Rajendra Pachauri no longer tries to hide his intentions, stating:
“I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible form the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.”
5. The IPCC Summaries for Policymakers about extreme weather is more alarmist than the scientific report.
The IPCC have released 2 documents on extreme events. These being the scientific report:IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a summary: IPCC, 2012: Summary for Policymakers. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
We have seen how IPCC officials, when compiling the Summaries for Policymakers have routinely exaggerated/distorted/ignored findings documented by IPCC contributing scientists and this report on extreme weather events is no exception.
In the scientific report we find the following statements:
“There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities.” (My emphasis)
“There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.” [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5] (My emphasis)
“There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia.” [3.5.1] (My emphasis)
“There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.” [3.5.2] (My emphasis)
“There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale.”
“The degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.” [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.3, Table 3-1]
“Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change. Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame.” (My emphasis)
“Projected precipitation and temperature changes imply possible changes in floods, although overall there is low confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods. Confidence is low due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex.” (My emphasis)
In summary, the IPCC scientific report is saying there is no clear anthropogenic signal in extreme weather events and there is no evidence of an increase in extreme weather events such as cyclones, tornadoes, flooding and drought.
So what does the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers say about extreme weather events, bearing in mind that this is the document prepared by UN officials and most likely to be read by the media, environmental activists and politicians?
“Models project substantial warming in temperature extremes by the end of the 21st century. It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century at the global scale.” [3.3.1, 3.1.6, Table 3-3, Figure 3-5]
“It is likely that the frequency of heavy precipitation or the proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls will increase in the 21st century over many areas of the globe.” [3.3.2, 3.4.4, Table 3-3, Figure 3-7]
“Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins.” [3.4.4]
“There is medium confidence that droughts will intensify in the 21st century in some seasons and areas, due to reduced precipitation and/or increased evapotranspiration.” [3.5.2]
These two documents have clearly reached different conclusions.
6. The IPCC claims that a large number of scientists write the IPCC reports when only a select few do and these include vested interest groups.
The IPCC gives the impression that their conclusions are reached via input from a large number of scientists from a wide range of climate-related disciplines. In fact a small group of geographers, meteorologists, computer modellers and environmentalists exert a disproportionate influence on IPCC conclusions. Relatively little input comes from astrophysicists, geophysicists and geologists who perhaps represent the more important fields that feed into climate science.
Leaked email (5251) shows Dr. Ray Bradley and Dr. Keith Briffa deciding not to get a writing team together, rather they considered they knew the “appropriate people” who would provide the “necessary input.” See:
IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen enlarged on this:
“The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”
“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else… but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.”
Donna Laframboise has documented numerous cases where environmental activists have been involved in the writing of IPCC reports:
7. When IPCC scientists have resigned because of perceived IPCC malfeasance, UN officials and the media simply ignore this.
Dr. Paul Reiter heads the Insects and Infectious Disease Unit at the Pasteur Institute. Because of his history of excellence in research of diseases transmitted by mosquitoes and other insects, the U.S. State Department in 2001 nominated Reiter to be a lead author of the IPCC’s health chapter.
The IPCC was taking the line (with no supporting evidence) that global warming was increasing the habitats for mosquitoes, putting hundreds of millions of people in the tropics at risk of contracting malaria and dengue fever. They promoted the view that these diseases would spread around the world because of global warming.
Reiter reported that, in its Second Assessment Report chapter on human population health, the IPCC displayed’ “glaring ignorance” about mosquitoes, their survival temperatures and the altitudes where mosquitoes can be found.
Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005. He said:
“The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject. Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists.”
Reiter resigned from the IPCC.
Dr. Chris Landsea pointed out how:
“The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
Landsea resigned from the IPCC.
Dr. Richard Lindzen described the IPCC alarmism as:
“An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization.”
Lindzen resigned from the IPCC.
In 1995 Dr. Roger Pielke was invited to be a contributing author to the IPCC chapter that dealt with regional climate modelling. He submitted recommended text and papers but all of his material was ignored (as it was in 1992 when he was asked to review several chapters in the IPCC supplement report).
Pielke resigned from the IPCC.
The IPCC has done nothing to investigate any of the problems or to offer an explanation for these resignations. They simply move on with the pursuit of their agenda.
8. The IPCC claims to use only peer-reviewed published literature when it clearly does no such thing.
The non-scientist former Chairman of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was always dismissive of any scientist or journalist critical of the IPCC selection of literature. Here is one defensive line he used regularly:
“The IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure the IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.” Rajendra Pachauri, November 2007.
Similar incorrect statements about the IPCC and peer-review have been echoed by others who actually believed Pachauri:
“Without a strong, peer-reviewed science base (provided by the IPCC) … the case for action on climate change would not be as unequivocal as it is today.” Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations Secretary General, August 2008.
“The IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment.” US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009.
“The IPCC bases its work on papers that have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.” The Economist, December 2009.
One has to ask if the above statements are correct?
A team of 43 auditors from 12 countries has scrutinised the IPCC’s 2007 report which comprises 44 chapters in its almost 3,000 pages.
It became clear that, of the 18,531 references cited in the IPCC report, 5,587 (nearly one third) of these were not peer-reviewed. They included press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, student theses, working papers, and literature published by environmental groups.
9. IPCC associates block submissions of papers critical of the anthropogenic global warming alarmism.
There is clear evidence of gate-keeping activities with regard to blocking submitted papers that argue against the notion of the IPCC’s catastrophic anthropogenic global warming alarmism. One of the Climategate emails from IPCC Author Dr. Phil Jones to his colleague Dr. Michael Mann on July 8, 2004, shows Jones confiding that he and IPCC co-author Dr. Kevin Trenberth were determined to keep contrary evidence out of the IPCC Report:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
There are currently more than 1,300 peer-reviewed papers that are skeptical of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming claims.
When Dr. Jason Johnston, former Professor of environmental law at the University of Pennsylvania in a paper entitled: Global Warming Advocacy: A Cross-Examination, looked to see if the IPCC reports actually represented “an unbiased and objective assessment.” Johnston reported:
“Such verification means comparing what the IPCC has to say about climate science with what one finds in the peer-reviewed climate science literature.”
“On virtually every major issue in climate change science, IPCC reports systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties.”
Johnston went on to say that when they examined research by “scientists at the very best universities” who are of “unimpeachable credibility” they found “facts and findings that are rarely if ever mentioned” by the IPCC.
10. Evidence is clear that temperature rises before atmospheric carbon dioxide level increases. The IPCC ignores this fact.
The proposition that carbon dioxide drives global temperature has been central to the IPCC’s claim of anthropogenic global warming. Yet there is ample empirical data to show this is not the case. In fact there are numerous peer-reviewed published papers showing that rising global temperature precede increasing carbon dioxide levels:
11. The IPCC ignores data showing that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas and has never driven global temperature.
The notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has been linked with current historic low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the relatively small inputs of carbon dioxide produced by human activity. Proxy data clearly show that:
Carbon dioxide levels have never driven global temperature over 500 million years of geologic time. See:
Dr. Myles Allen, an IPCC Lead Author, has admitted that the climate computer models are exaggerating warming. He told the London Times (September 2017):
“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
The logarithmic warming effect of increasing levels of carbon dioxide was explained by Dr. William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University, to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, U.S. House of Representatives:
Retired CSIRO research scientist Dr. LeBlanc Smith questions the role of carbon dioxide in climate change:
“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it.”
Dr. Terry Wimberley:
“The CO2 theory of global warming is not verified by geological and climate records going back thousands of years or by observed fact. The CO2 theory of climate change is based upon a computer simulation model and flawed data that has been widely criticized in scientific literature.”
12. A senior IPCC scientist gave an assurance of no NGO input into IPCC reports. This assurance proved false.
Sir John Houghton was Professor of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford University (1976-1983), former head of the UK Meteorological Office (1983-991) and chairman or co-chairman of the IPCC Science Working Group for the first three IPCC reports.
Houghton is also chairman of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation “connecting Environment, Science and Christianity”, where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve. In a presentation called “Climate Change: a Christian Challenge which he gaveto the National Association of Evangelicals (Washington DC, March 2005) he made his position clear:
Houghton gave the assurance that: “The IPCC is too big an organisation to be captured by an ideological cabal or fall foul of group-think.”
And: “The IPCC process also makes it impossible for green propaganda to be slipped in.”
And: “A report from Greenpeace or any other campaigning body would not be included because the science would not be considered robust enough.”
In fact the IPCC has used input from a number of non-peer reviewed reports and there are many examples.For instance, expert reviewers have connections with Greenpeace; Friends of the Earth; Climate Action Network; World Wildlife Fund; Environmental defence and the David Suzuki Foundation.
Not only has former IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri had questionable links with environmental advocacy groups, a number of contributors to the IPCC’s reports also have close links with such groups. These include Richard Klein who was a Greenpeace campaigner and Lead Author for the IPCC:
Bill Hare who has been both a voice for Greenpeace and Lead Author and expert reviewer for the IPCC:
Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who was an IPCC contributing author, wrote a number of reports that were funded and published by Greenpeace:
Richard Moss worked for the IPCC over a number of years when he was a Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund:
Jennifer Morgan who contributed to an IPCC 2010 report was the WWF’s spokesperson on climate change:
Michael Oppenheimer appears to be an activist scientist and a Lead Author for the IPCC in 2007 while spending many years working for the Environmental Defence Fund.
Nine other members of the IPCC’s writing team are linked with the WWF’s Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel. These are: Osvaldo Canziani, Saleemul Huq, David Karoly, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Monirul Mirza, Leonard Nurse, Nijavalli Ravindranath, Stephen Schneider (deceased), and Gary Yohe.
In July, 1999, Adam Markham from the WWF wrote to Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, at the University of East Anglia about a paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia. They wrote:
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in World Wildlife Fund Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. …
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from Australian scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
Here are personnel from an environmental activist organisation urging scientists to make sections of their papere more alarming.
We also have Sebastian Catovsky from Imperial College, London
collaborating with Greenpeace and suggesting that personnel from the University of East Anglia do the same:
Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has provided numerous examples illustrating how IPCC chapters have input from activists and other vested interests rather than scientists simply looking dispassionately at the evidence:
13. IPCC raw temperature data were withheld by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and then “lost.”
The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UK) was established in the 1980’s and produces a comprehensive record of global surface temperature to be used by the IPCC.
Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Tom Wigley produced the primary surface temperature reference standard to be used by the IPCC. Despite concern from a number of climate scientists about the location of stations (close to parking lots, trees, airports and heat vents) and limited coverage, the questionable temperature record led to the IPCC declaring there was: “a discernable human influence in global climate.”
Jones and Wigley didn’t specify how station data were “adjusted” to allow for location problems. Nonetheless, they produced a record which supposedly showed a warming trend of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C over the 20th century.
Warwick Hughes was suspicious and, in 2005, he asked Dr. Phil Jones for the original raw data. Jones responded:
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
In November 2011, Willis Eschenbach reported how he also applied for station data, held by the CRU, using a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. He wrote to the University of East Anglia’s David Palmer but it appeared that nobody had the data Eschenbach requested.
It could be argued that someone at the CRU may have committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. As Dr. Patrick Michaels reflected:
“If there are no data, there’s no science.”
The CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris was given the seemingly hopeless task of managing their temperature data files. Leaked emails from the CRU highlight his frustration over the “bloody mess” and “the state of the Australian data” and “so many false references” and“so many changes that aren’t documented” and“the whole project is SUCH A MESS.”
As the late Christopher Booker observed:
“What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.”
14. IPCC personnel claimed the Earth is “running a fever” when there has been little or no global warming for at least the last 20 years.
IPCC Lead Author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth told Congress in 2005 that evidence for manmade warming is “unequivocal.” He claimed “the planet is “running a fever” and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse.”
In 2009, leaked emails reveal that Trenberth knew that global warming wasn’t happening. He commented to Stephen Schneider, Myles Allen, Peter Stott, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas Karl, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
Other leaked emails from the University of East Anglia showed IPCC scientists privately admitting their concern that global warming has stopped.
Dr. Phil Jones emailed Tim Johns and Chris Folland expressing concern about the lack of warming. He said:
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like – half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998! Still a way to go before 2014.”
There is no evidence to support continued global warming with Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado pointing out:
“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN IPCC… .The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium… which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.”
It is clear that although carbon dioxide levels have increased, mainly via natural inputs, uncontaminated satellite data are showing that global temperatures are not rising as alarmists claim, with cooling at 12 stations in Alaska:
With cooling at stations in Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Ireland and the UK:
With cooling in China:
With cooling in Canada:
Although there have been a number of warming episodes over the last 3,000 years, the current interglacial maximum temperature has not reached the maximum attained during the previous four interglacial episodes:
IPCC contributing scientist Dr. Don Easterbrook notes that the IPCC reported:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950’s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.”
“There just isn’t any nice way to say this-it’s an outright lie. A vast published literature exists showing that recent warming is not only not unusual, but more intense warming has occurred many times in the past centuries and millennia. As a reviewer of the IPCC report, I called this to their attention, so they cannot have been unaware of it.”
The above examples are only a few of the many questionable episodes involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change associates. More than 120 further examples can be located at:
Dr. John Happs M.Sc.1st Class; D.Phil. John has an academic background in the geosciences with special interests in climate, and paleoclimate. He has been a science educator at several universities in Australia and overseas and was President of the Western Australian Skeptics for 25 years.