Climate – some comments from scientists

Just as things were dying down I was sent an email from Dr John Happs. He certainly seems to know more about the science than I do. Given a lot of commentators seem to suggest that only scientists can comment on such a matter, despite it being all of us who pick up the bill, I thought I would include this very long document from John. .

I don’t know anyone quoted in this document, nor do I have any feel of how expert they are. However, there are a lot of them and they don’t seem very convinced with the human made warmest theory either.

19th October 2012

Dear Mr Clarke

I read with interest the article reported in the Cambridge News (18th October 2012) in which you rightly questioned if global warming was continuing (we have had global cooling since 2002) and the contribution to climate change from human activity (carbon dioxide has never driven global temperature in 500 million years).

Criticism of such questioning from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) personnel such as Professor Eric Wolff and environmentalists such as Tony Juniper are to be expected since they are now fighting a rear-guard action against the overwhelming body of evidence which exposes the questionable science of the now discredited IPCC.

Now retired, my academic background is in the geosciences and I have taught climate/paleoclimate at a number of universities in Australia and the USA. I believe I have a reasonable grasp of the climate literature, as far as anyone can in this complex and inter- disciplinary area, and I have been immersed in the literature for several decades.

Here are a few facts about carbon dioxide and global temperature which neither Eric Wolff nor Tony Juniper can deny:

  1. (a)  Carbon dioxide levels, although currently climbing slowly, via natural processes, are close to their lowest levels (394 ppm) in 500 million years.

  2. (b)  There has never been any correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures over 500 million years.

Professor Terry Wimberley says:

“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.”

(c) When carbon dioxide levels were ten times higher than today’s levels, during the Ordovician, the Earth was in the depths of an ice age.

(d) Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas so the above statements should come as no surprise;

Interestingly, MIT atmospheric physicist Professor Richard Lindzen maintains that many of the “top climate scientists” have now distanced themselves from the activities of the IPCC.

It is worth looking at some of the statements that have been made by a number of scientists and other experts who have worked for the IPCC in various capacities. Many well published climate scientists found their research findings to be in disagreement with IPCC statements. Being unable to reconcile their findings with the IPCC’s preferred view, some have resigned from the IPCC process. When other scientists have expressed their criticism of the IPCC process they have not been asked to contribute to subsequent reports. Here are a few comments from IPCC contributors, such as authors and reviewers:

Dr Robert Balling:“The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

Dr John Daniel: “If you make a big deal about every time it (temperature) goes up, it seems like you should make a big deal about every time it goes down.”

Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a

discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

Dr Giorgi Filippo: “I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our (IPCC) conclusions (or any conclusions)…..the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. “

Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

Dr George Filippo: “I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) … I feel that at this point there are very little rules [sic] and almost anything goes.”

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furore started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

Dr Madhav Khandekar:”I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Dr Judith Lean: “Climate models failed to reflect the sun’s cyclical influence on the climate and that has led to a sense that the sun isn’t a player … they have to absolutely prove that it’s not a player.”

Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

Dr Harry Lins:”Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way

in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

Dr Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future – 100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

Dr Alec Rawls: “What I found interesting in the IPCC report is how blatant the statistical fraud is, omitting the competing explanation from the models completely, while pretending that they are using their models to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming. These people are going to hang on to their power grab until the bitter end.”

Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

Dr Tom Segalstad:”The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

Dr Jagadish Shukla: ”It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

Dr Peter Thorne: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

Dr Fritz Vahrenholt: “Doubt came two years ago when I was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy. I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate were similarly sloppy. I couldn’t take it any more.”

Dr Heinz Wanner: “ I was a reviewer of the IPCC-TAR report 2001. In my review … I criticized the fact that the whole Mann hockeystick is being printed in its full length in the IPCC-TAR report.

In 1999 I made the following comments:

1. The spatial, temporal (tree-ring data in the midlatitudes mainly contain “summer information”) and spectral coverage and behaviour of the data is questionable, mainly before 1500-1600 AD.

2. It is in my opinion not appropriate already to make statements for the southern hemisphere and for the period prior to 1500 AD.

My review was classified “unsignificant”

Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber:“Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”

Hardly one or two dissenting scientists here.

We often hear the claim that those who reject the notion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) don’t produce peer-reviewed, published literature has been made repeatedly in the media. In fact the scientifically illiterate Al Gore said:

“There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we’re causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people.”

It’s easy for anyone to look up: reviewed-papers-supporting-skeptic-arguments-against-accagw- alarm

Here you will find an abundance of peer-reviewed, published material that has been conveniently indexed so that readers can check the literature on polar ice, sea level, extreme weather etc.

Was Al Gore unaware of this literature or does he only have a nodding acquaintance with the truth?

So why hasn’t this skeptical literature been paraded by the media and, more importantly, why has the IPCC ignored or marginalized such a large body of literature which does not support the CAGW message?

Dr Jason Johnson, Professor of environmental law at the University of Virginia in a paper entitled: Global Warming Advocacy: A Cross-Examination, looked to see if the IPCC reports

actually represented “an unbiased and objective assessment.” Johnson 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.”

He concluded:

“On virtually every major issue in climate change science, IPCC reports systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties.”

Johnson 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.

There is clear evidence of gate-keeping activities with regard to papers which argue against the notion of CAGW. 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 evidence contrary to CAGW out of the IPCC Report. Jones said:

“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!”

In other emails Grant Foster was looking for suitable comments about a paper which was critical of the notion of CAGW. Jones gave Foster a list of people, telling him that:

“These reviewers would know what to say about the paper without any prompting.”

Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen wrote, in a submission to the UK Parliament:

“I inherited the editorship of Energy & Environment from a former senior scientist at the Department of the Environment (Dr. David Everest) because we shared doubts about the claims made by

environmentalists and were worried about the readiness with which politicians accepted these claims, including ‘global warming’ which followed so seamlessly from the acid rain scare, my previous research area. As editor of a journal which remained open to scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of CRU manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E’s disadvantage, and showed that libel threats were considered against its editorial team. Dr Jones even tried to put pressure on my university department. The emailers expressed anger over my publication of several papers that questioned the ‘hockey stick’ graph and the reliability of CRU temperature data.”

Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicists, Dr Sallie Baliunas and Dr Willie Soon, reviewed over 200 peer-reviewed climate papers which indicated that the 20th century was neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather. They submitted their findings to the journal Climate Research. IPCC scientist Dr Michael Mann, in an email he sent in March, 2003, said:

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who sit on the editorial board.”

It really isn’t difficult to find clear examples where the IPCC has either marginalised or ignored conflicting peer-reviewed, published literature which challenges the exaggerated IPCC “findings” about:

Ocean warming/acidification; residence time of atmospheric carbon dioxide; recent years being the hottest on record; continuing atmospheric warming; the global warming impact of rising carbon dioxide levels; the effects of climate change on the Amazon rainforest; sea level rise; flooding in the Netherlands; flooding in Bangladesh; ice loss in the Arctic; ice loss in the Antarctic; ice loss in Greenland; ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa; snow cover; ice melt and fresh water reduction; extreme weather events such as floods and cyclones; agricultural yields in African countries; species extinction; disease and mortality rates and drought and wildfires.

It would appear then that there is a great deal of dissent within the scientific community about the IPCC’s alarmist narrative. You might want to look up:

“More Than 1,000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming”

And the following petitions:

The Heidelberg Appeal; The Oregon Petition; The Manhattan Declaration; Open Letter to UN Secretary General; The Petition by German Scientists to the Chancellor; The Leipzig Declaration; Statement from Atmospheric Scientists; Letter to the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate; Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics; Statement from scientists to President Obama; Two statements from NASA scientists and other employees.

It is now clear that tens of thousands of scientists (a distinct majority), from a range of disciplines, are now questioning the IPCC’s mantra of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

I, along with many others, assumed and trusted that the IPCC would conduct an impartial meta-analysis of the climate literature. Groups of scientists and other experts produced, in good faith, a series of technical reports for the IPCC. These are rarely consulted by the media, politicians and those who do not have the appropriate subject expertise. The IPCC does however produce a series of documents called Summaries For Policy Makers (SPM’s) which are made available to the media and politicians, providing them with a summary of what IPCC officials claim are the conclusions of contributing scientists.

Now anyone who is familiar with the climate literature and then reads both the IPCC’s technical reports and the SPM’s will be disturbed by what they find. They will be even more disturbed if they then read the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Throughout my academic career, I have always stressed to my students the value of scientific integrity yet, as I have moved through the IPCC documents, I have documented more than 80

clear cases of scientific malfeasance which casts serious doubt on the scientific integrity within the IPCC.

Let me share a few examples:

Example 1. The IPCC claims to use only peer-reviewed published literature when it clearly does no

such thing.

The non-scientist Chairman of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri has always been dismissive of any scientist or journalist critical of the IPCC process. Here is one defensive line he has 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.

He also said:

“People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.” Rajendra Pachauri, June 2008.


“This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings.” Rajendra Pachauri, June 2008.

Similar statements 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.

There are 18,531 cited references and each chapter was audited 3 times with references being sorted into articles that were published in peer-reviewed academic journals and non-peer-reviewed articles.

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.

Some chapters were particularly scant with regard to peer- reviewed literature. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3’s report, for instance, has only 61 of its 260 references being peer-reviewed, i.e. about three-quarters of the material cited in that particular chapter was not peer-reviewed.

Here we find the IPCC Chairman being economical with the truth and a leaked email in 2000, from the IPCC’s Vice-Chair (2002- 2008) Dr George Filippo, shows that he knew “grey literature” was being used. Filippo said:

“I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions) … I feel that at this point there are very little rules [sic] and almost anything goes.”

Example 2. The IPCC claims 4,000 scientists endorse its anthropogenic global warming position.

Actually only 5 reviewers did.

The IPCC’s central claim is that human activity is contributing significantly to global warming and that this claim is supported by 2,500 or 4,000 scientists. This claim has been widely publicised:

In fact Dr John McLean points out that this core claim was endorsed by only 5 reviewers of the IPCC’s 2007 report and there is some doubt that they were actually scientists. It would appear then that the entire catastrophic anthropogenic global warming edifice has been promoted by a small group.

Dr Timothy Carter from the Finnish Environment Institute observes:

“It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.”

Many names on IPCC lists are double-counted and the IPCC’s list of ‘scientists’ include personal assistants and support staff.

When Dr William Schlesinger was asked by Dr John Christy how many members of the IPCC were climate scientists, he answered that many if not most of its members are not scientists at all, including its President. Schlesinger went on to say that:

“Something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”

In other words, 80% of the IPCC membership have no formal qualifications in climate science.

Chapter 9 in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (FAR), was written by just 53 people, including many computer modelers. No empirical data were provided to link temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

“The world’s leading climate scientists” is a meaningless phrase since relatively few countries have the necessary educational courses and infrastructure to produce skilled climate scientists. As Dr Richard Lindzen, former member of the IPCC said:

“It is no small matter that routine weather service functionaries from New Zealand to Tanzania are referred to as ‘the world’s leading climate scientists.’ It should come as no surprise that they will be determinedly supportive of the process.”

Moreover, it is possible that many scientists, from non-democratic countries will promote a perspective which will benefit their country, according to their government’s directives.

As quoted previously, the IPCC’s Dr Mike Hulme was clear:

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

Example3. The IPCC attempts to include names of experts on their reports even if those experts

disagree with the IPCC SPM’s.

Even when contributing scientists do not agree with statements in the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers, the IPCC includes their names as contributing scientists.

Professor Frederick Seitz says:

“Many of the contributing scientists object to what is left in the Summaries For Policymakers after the non-scientists have influenced it but their names remain as contributing scientists.”

Seitz asked for his name to be removed from the report but the IPCC refused saying that he had contributed to the report, so they had to give him credit. Seitz insisted they remove his name and he threatened legal action if they did not comply. Eventually, they did comply.

Seitz went on to say:

“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

Example 4. IPCC scientists resign over perceived malfeasance and the IPCC simply ignore this.

Professor 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 Professor 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.

Research scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, Dr Chris Landsea has made clear that the IPCC has systematically ignored the science, presented by its own experts, on hurricane intensity. Rather, the IPCC have promoted dramatic scenarios which are not backed up by research findings.

Dr Landsea asks the question:

“Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? …As far as I know, there are none.”


“I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Landsea resigned from the IPCC.

Atmospheric Physicist (MIT), Professor Richard Lindzen was Lead Author for the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). He relates how, as an insider, he was able to observe how manipulation took place. He noted how the reports and summaries were subject to constant pressure to push findings in a definite direction:

“Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC “co-ordinators” would go around insisting that criticism of (computer) models be toned down and that “motherhood” statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their “green” credentials in defence of their statements.”

Lindzen said:

“The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

Lindzen resigned from the IPCC.

In 1995 Professor Roger Pielke Sr. was invited to be a contributing author to the IPCC Chapter which dealt with regional climate modeling. 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 or to offer an explanation for these resignations. They simply move on with their agenda.

Example5. The IPCC Summaries for Policymakers are written by UN officials and bureaucrats.

Physical chemist Dr Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm pointed out the influence of UN officials on the Summaries for Policymakers which go out to the media and politicians. They are not prepared by the scientists who produced the technical reports:

“These [IPCC] summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives.”

The Summaries for Policymakers therefore cannot be presented as a consensus view among experts as the media and politicians often claim. In fact they often distort or contradict the scientific conclusions.

Dr Peter Friedman points out the problem:

“The IPCC’s policy summaries, written by a small group of their political operatives, frequently contradict the work of the scientists that prepare the scientific assessments. Even worse, some of the

wording in the science portions has been changed by policy makers after the scientists have approved the conclusions.”

Example 6. IPCC personnel instruct authors to make technical reports conform with summaries

prepared for the media and politicians.

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.”

This suggests that the SPM statements, which go out to the media and politicians, will take priority and the technical reports must comply with the SPM statements.

The IPCC’s 1995 Scientific Report draft included the following three statements:

1. “None of the (scientific) studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” (Source, IPCC, 1995.)

2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic causes.” (Source, IPCC, 1995.)

3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” (Source, IPCC, 1995.)

All three of the above statements, written by IPCC contributing scientists, were later replaced with:

“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here is another example where statements were changed in Chapter 8 of the 1995 report to give the impression that there was little doubt about the human influence on global climate.

The original draft read:

“Finally we have come to the most difficult question of all: “When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur?” In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discussed in the Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, “We do not know.”

This was changed to align it with the SPM:

“The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate.”

IPCC Lead Author, Dr Ben Santer, admitted (December 17, 2009) to Jesse Ventura on national TV, that he had deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change. Santer went on to say:

“It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC report) chapter “on the detection of greenhouse warming.”


“I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that the attribution issue [man-made climate change] is a done deal.”

Here we have an IPCC Lead Author admitting that few scientists would say that the attribution issue (climate change is man-made) is a done deal.

It is clear that the “Summary for Policymakers” is actually a “Summary By Policymakers” and it is approved by the policymakers themselves. It does not have to coincide with the views of the scientists who produced the technical reports. In fact it is clear that the “Summary for Policymakers” is more a political

statement and this was acknowledged by Dr Phil Jones in an email (redacted) sent to Dr Chris Folland at the Met Office Hadley Centre, UK:

I sent it. He says he’ll read the IPCC Chapters! He hadn’t as he said he thought they were politically biased. I assured him they were not. The SPM may be, but not the chapters.
From other things in his email though, he won’t be convinced. Cheers

Here we have a senior IPCC scientist admitting that the “Summaries for Policymakers” may be politically biased.

Example 7. Comments from expert reviewers were ignored if they did not conform with UN

officials and bureaucrats requirements.

Dr Madhav Khandekar, an expert reviewer for the IPCC in 2007 reports:

“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis).”

IPCC scientist Dr Philip Lloyd reported how the IPCC’s Summaries for Policymakers distorted the Scientist’s work. He said:

“I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

Example 8. The IPCC does not allow any criticism of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis to

progress through to the final IPCC report.

Scientists who do not support the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis are excluded from being IPCC Chairpersons or Lead Authors. They can be Expert Reviewers but any criticisms they might have of chapter content can and often are ignored. It

appears that Lead Authors are unwilling to accept any criticism of their own work.

As Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen found out:

“The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Dr Aynsley Kellow agreed:

“I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

As did Dr Roger Pielke:

“All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

Example 9. The IPCC ignored its own scientific report which showed significant warming several

thousand years ago.

The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR) in WG1 stated:

“A global warming of larger size has almost certainly occurred at least once since the end of the last glaciation without any appreciable increase in greenhouse gas. Because we do not understand the reasons for these past warming events, it is not yet possible to attribute a specific proportion of the recent, smaller warming to an increase in greenhouse gases.” (my emphasis)

The Summaries for Policymakers (SPM’s) contained no such uncertainties. This very important statement was deleted.

Example 10. 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 the IPCC 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] (My emphasis)

“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 brief, the IPCC scientific report suggests there is no clear anthropogenic signal in extreme weather events and there is little or 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 groups 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.”

These two documents have clearly reached different conclusions.

Example 11. IPCC changes conclusions reached by scientist about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The IPCC “massaged” a conclusion reached by Dr David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey who commented on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). He said:

“Since most of WAIS is not showing change, it now seems unlikely that complete collapse of WAIS, with the threat of a 5-m rise in sea level, is imminent in the coming few centuries.”

So how did the IPCC report Vaughan’s statement? In fact, they said:

“If the Amundsen Sea sector were eventually deglaciated, it would add about 1.5 m to sea level, while the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would account for about 5 m (Vaughan, 2007).”

Vaughan’s statement “Since most of WAIS is not showing change..” was ignored.

Example 12. IPCC scientists acknowledge that computer prediction of future climate is not possible. The IPCC then proceeds to make computer-

based climate predictions.

The IPCC has acknowledged the limitations of their own modelling. Their computer models have not been able to predict future climate accurately, at either global or regional level. This is well understood by all climate modelling practitioners and their colleagues, starting with the IPCC authors who wrote in The Third Assessment Report (Chapter 14,, Working Group 1, The Scientific Basis):

“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC senior scientist and Lead Author, has admitted to this problem:

“There are no (climate) predictions by the IPCC at all and never have been.”

Additionally, senior IPCC representative, Dr Jim Renwick (2007), stated that:

“Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.”

In a leaked email (4443) Dr Phil Jones from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia admits:

“Climate models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.”

Dr Tom Wigley emailed Dr Michael Mann:

“The figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.”

So what exactly were IPCC alarmist predictions of global warming, sea level rise etc. based on?

Example 13. The IPCC report that the accuracy of climate models have improved when its own scientific reports actually show that model

inputs are poorly understood.

In their various assessment reports the IPCC admit that scientific knowledge about climate forcing agents is incomplete. Despite this admission they suggest that the accuracy of climate models has improved since earlier reports were released. The scientific community is expected to accept without question every conclusion or prediction based on the output from the IPCC computer models. Subsequent reports demonstrate that computer model inputs are still poorly understood.

In the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR, 2001) we are shown the levels of Scientific Understanding of Climate Forcings at that time:

Radiative Forcing agent

Greenhouse gases (halogens, N2O, CH4, CO2)

Stratospheric ozone
Tropospheric ozone
Aerosols – Sulphate
Aerosols – Carbon from fossil fuel burning Aerosols – Biomass burning)

Aerosols – Mineral dust Aerosols – indirect effects Aviation-induced contrails

Level of Scientific Understanding

High Medium Medium Low

Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low Very Low

Aviation-induced cirrus e Land use – albedo only Solar radiative forcing

(After IPCC TAR, 2001 WGI SPM figure 3)

Very Low Very Low Very Low

In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (FAR, 2007) we are shown the levels of Scientific Understanding of Climate Forcings at that time:

Forcing agent Level of Scientific Understanding

Long-lived greenhouse gases Stratospheric ozone
Tropospheric ozone
Stratospheric water vapour from CH4 Direct Aerosol

Cloud albedo effect (all aerosols) Surface albedo (Land Use)
Surface albedo (BC aerosol on snow) Persistent Linear Contrails

Solar irradiance Volcanic aerosol

Stratospheric water vapour
from causes other than CH4 oxidation

Tropospheric water vapour from irrigation

High Medium Medium Low

Medium to Low Low Medium to Low

Low Low Low Low

Very Low Very Low

Aviation-induced cirrus Cosmic Rays
Other surface effects

(After IPCC FAR, 2007 WGI Table 2.11 P201)

Very Low Very Low Very Low

There is clearly an admitted low level of understanding of most of these forcing agents reported in both the 2001 and 2007 reports. Dr Jagadish Shukla, Lead IPCC Author (2007) says:

“It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion- and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

Dr Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge says:

“The interpretation of the observational science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm. All real-world data over the past 20 years has shown the climate models to be exaggerating the likely impacts — if the models cannot account for the near term, why should I trust them in the long term?”

Dr Larry Bell says:

“Global climate forecast models are really nothing more than informed, but highly speculative, guesses produced by untested methods, which are easily manipulated to comply with preconceived expectations.”


“Even in regard to local weather predictions, the ability to really forecast beyond about 10 days in unrealistic … Climate models are no different, and they have never demonstrated an ability to

predict changes even 10 years ahead, much less 100 years or more.”

Professor Vincent Muirhead agrees:

“For any computer model to produce answers, many extremely questionable assumptions must be made. Why can‘t the current scientific models accurately predict next week‘s weather?”

Despite this lack of understanding of climate forcing agents, the IPCC wants us to believe that climate models are accurate and reliable.

Example 14. IPCC coordinators pressured scientists to tone down criticisms of computer models.

Atmospheric Physicist (MIT), Professor Richard Lindzen was Lead Author for the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). He relates how, as an insider, he was able to observe how manipulation took place. He noted how the reports and summaries were subject to constant pressure to push findings in a definite direction:

“Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC “co-ordinators” would go around insisting that criticism of (computer) models be toned down and that “motherhood” statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their “green” credentials in defence of their statements.”

One might ask what green credentials have to do with objective climate science. Perhaps the answer can be traced back to the origins of the IPCC.

When the IPCC was launched in 1988, it soon became apparent that the IPCC is a single-interest organization which had already assumed a widespread human influence on climate. The IPCC was asked:

“To assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”

Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Environmental Programme, from which the IPCC was spawned, had made his position clear:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

In 1989 Strong prepared for the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), scheduled for Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This was “The Earth Summit” where Strong Stated:

“It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class … involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and ‘convenience’ foods, ownership of motorcars -, numerous electric household appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning … expansive suburban housing … are not sustainable.”

Apparently Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, doesn’t concern himself with scientific facts:

“Even if the theory of global warming is wrong we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Ottmar Edenhofer is a leading member of the UN’s IPCC. He was co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007. He made clear the UN’s position:

“The climate summit in Cancun —- is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”

He described what the UN intentions are:

“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”


“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”


“If global emission rights are distributed – If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there.”

The IPCC appears to have abandoned the scientific method and any rigorous testing of theory against observation. The IPCC has operated for over 20 years and has consumed huge amounts of taxpayer money to conduct what should have been a dispassionate meta-analysis of climate data. Professor Larry Bell points out that the politicization of science has led to its corruption.

In other words this looks very much like an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth and the climate conference in Cancun was more a disguised sociological conference rather than a climate conference. Western nations will be asked to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to the United Nations with a commitment to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN annually. This huge amount of taxpayer’s money would be transferred from the West to developing countries under the pretext of enabling them to adapt to imaginary “global warming” or is that now “climate change” or is that now “climate disruption” or is that now “more extreme weather” or will it morph into “sustainability”?

IPCC reviewer Dr Fritz Vahrenholt noted:

“Of the 34 members of the IPCC Secretariat, the bulk are from the global South – such as Cuba, Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or China. These countries all have an interest in transfer payments. Until then, I had thought researchers would meet and discuss. No, in fact these are delegates representing nation states – and not always democratic ones. They represent interests and exert influence.”

Bolivian President, Eva Morales, has been campaigning for years to obtain international (climate change) compensation for developing countries. Morales stated clearly that the main objective of the conference would be to “save the planet from capitalism.”

UN bureaucrat, Richard Benedik adds:

“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.”

This is not climate science. It’s climate ideology. As Dr Gwyn Prins, professor at the London School of Economics & Political Science says:

“People with expert knowledge were allowing themselves to cross the line into advocacy and that is where it becomes a political issue.”

IPCC Chairman 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.”

I can say with confidence that the IPCC is one of the few organizations which can be accused of scientific malpractice without fear of litigation and one can readily imagine the very long queue of scientists waiting to testify against the IPCC. Many scientists are now being more forthright in their public criticism of the IPCC:

Dr Vincent Gray, climate consultant, long-standing member of the New Zealand Royal Society and expert reviewer for all four IPCC Assessment Reports described the IPCC’s climate change statements as:

“An orchestrated litany of lies.”

Former Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg, Dr Tim Ball was equally explicit:

“The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud.”

Dr Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at The University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne agrees:

“Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it’s all based on fraud.”

Professor Tim Ball was also explicit about the leaked emails and documents:

“The argument that global warming is due to humans, known as the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is a deliberate fraud. I can now make that statement without fear of contradiction because of a remarkable hacking of files that provided not just a smoking gun, but an entire battery of machine guns.”


“Carbon dioxide was never a problem and all the machinations and deceptions exposed by these files prove that it is the greatest deception in history, but nobody is laughing. It is a very sad day for science.”

Dr Christopher Kobus, Professor of engineering at Oakland University says:

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data.”

Dr Hilton Ratcliffe, physicist, mathematician and astronomer was equally clear:

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”

Dr Martin Keeley: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

Russian glaciologist and geomorphologist, Dr Andrei Kapitsa also considered the Kyoto Protocol as:

“The biggest ever scientific fraud.”

Dr Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS). He said:

“Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen.”


“… the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Dr Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, also resigned from the APS over its position on global warming. He objected to their statement that: “the evidence is incontrovertible.”

Dr William Gray is Emeritus Professor and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado University. He states:

“I am of the opinion that (global warming) is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.”

Professor Bob Carter, Research Fellow at James Cook University is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist. Professor Carter describes the notion of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as promoted by the IPCC as:

“The greatest self-organised scientific and political conspiracy that the world has ever seen.”

Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn says:

“It is in the interests of the whole world for the whole UN Climate Change policy to be totally abandoned. The CO2 theory is failed science based on fraudulent data.”

Research chemist, Dr William Gilbert wants his feelings known:

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”

Professor Will Alexander, hydrology and flood analysis expert says:

“I believe that this whole global warming/climate change issue is no more than a monumental scam.”


“The fraudulent science continues to be exposed.”

Science writer Richard Kerr:

“Climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

Princeton Physics Professor Robert Austin and other APS members signed a statement which said:

“By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen…”

Geophysicist Dr Norm Kalmanovitch: “When the cooling started in 2002 climate change and advocacy for following the dictates of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change went from an issue of science to an issue of fraud …”

Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University:

“The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

IPCC expert reviewer Professor Tom Segalstad, Geologist, Geochemist and IPCC expert reviewer describes how silly the IPCC’s claims really are:

“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

Clive Crook is the Financial Times Chief Washington Commentator and former believer in anthropogenic global warming and supporter of carbon dioxide reduction measures might have had a change of heart:

“The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

IPCC expert reviewer Dr Kiminori Itoh is equally scathing:

“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”

Physicist Dr Roger Cohen:

“I was appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defence of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.”

Astrophysicist Dr Dennis Hollars:

“What I’d do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that’s all it’s worth. Man made global warming is basically flawed science.”

Analytical atmospheric chemist Dr Michael Myers:

“Man-made global warming is ‘junk‘ science.”

Swedish climatologist, Dr Hans Jelbring is equally specific:

“Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.”


“The global warming establishment has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

Dr Fred Singer was clear:

“The people who did the IPCC reports were essentially crooks.”

Professor Richard Lindzen said:

“The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.”

Statistician and IPCC expert reviewer Dr Alec Rawls reflected on how the IPCC ignored the fact that the empirical evidence in favour of the solar explanation (for warming/cooling) is overwhelming. He said:

“What I found interesting in the IPCC report is how blatant the statistical fraud is.”

I can thoroughly recommend (it’s available on Kindle) Donna Laframboise’s book The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. She has meticulously exposed the IPCC in all its inept and ideological glory. She writes:

“I’ve given up expecting the IPCC to demonstrate any sort of professionalism or accountability. I think the internal culture there is so rotten, the situation is quite hopeless.”

Questioning the authority and integrity of the IPCC does not bring into question the integrity and commitment of those scientists who contributed in good faith to the IPCC’s technical reports.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could have delivered so much had it focussed on climate science rather than advocacy. Here we have a political/ideological group masquerading as an independent scientific body. Sadly, at the end of the day, taxpayers and climate science will be the big losers.

Dr John Happs 

12 thoughts on “Climate – some comments from scientists

  1. It would be very interesting to find out how many of those “experts” receive funding etc from Climate Change and government organisations who support the “Global Warming” theory. Theory being the optimum word.


  2. In your “Global Warming – Review” blog, point 4 you said:

    ” The tactic seems to be to try to shut down any debate or flood the argument with so many ” facts” that no one can see the wood for the trees ( I like that green analogy).”

    Given that you wrote the above I find it quite funny that you now do this.


  3. Sorry, but that list isn’t particularly impressive. There were 619 contributing authors on IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007) alone. How many IPCC reports do your names spread over, and have all of the scientists you list ever even been lead authors on their published peer reviewed papers?

    What’s a little confusing in your list is you quote Dr Giorgi Filippo and Dr George Filippo. Aren’t they one and the same, and shouldn’t the name be Filippo Giorgi? Perhaps Tallbloke can correct that for you?

    Here’s another list, by the way, of over 3000 climate scientists. Kind of puts your list above into perspective (and yes, some of your names are in there), and it’s by no means a comprehensive list of climate scientists either.


  4. Just to take a sample….

    “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!”
    “Dr. Trenberth offers an insight for this comment that was previously unknown to me. The IPCC’s 2007 report “was the first time Jones was on the writing team of an IPCC Assessment,” he says. “The comment was naive and sent before he understood the process and before any lead author meetings were held…As a veteran of 3 previous IPCC assessments, I was well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out.” Indeed, both studies were discussed in the 2007 report, offering proof that the private emails of scientists do not always correspond to their ultimate actions.”

    Note that a contributing author is not a lead author.


  5. I found the article to be very comprehensive and clearly shows that a significant number of scientists are of a sceptical nature. Of course it is silly to embark on a “my list is bigger than your list” kind of discussion. The crucial points are – what evidence is there that CO2 is or will cause dangerous warming – not just a small amount, but enough to be dangerous.

    Finally Phil Jones may well have been “naive” as Trenberth asserts, but his intentions were clear. The email is very revealing of the mindest of him and other leading scientists and it isn’t nice or fair or scientific.


  6. Okay, let’s put it this way. Out of the very roughly 10,000 peer reviewed scientific papers published each year on climate, how many do you think express non-consensus opinion of AGW?

    Put one hand in your pocket and use your fingers on the other for the answer. Forget using your thumb.


  7. My new book contains new revelations about the comments of Kevin Trenberth (which J Bowers refers to above). The story of how Jones fabricated part of the IPCC report to try to counter the two papers is pretty extraordinary. The story of how the official inquiry managed to “overlook” the evidence about what happened is amazing and is told for the first time.


  8. That is a good selection of comments. There is also this, about climategate and the response to it, from Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics at Oxford:

    “The decision to hide the decline, and the dogged refusal to admit that this was an error, has endangered the credibility of the whole of climate science.”

    And this from Professor of Engineering Michael Kelly, Cambridge:

    “I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models!”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s