The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is threatening us with hellfire and damnation. But its conclusions are suspect. Rather than investigating all possible causes of climate change, it’s in the business of pointing a finger at humanity.
The world’s most important climate body dedicates its new document to a rude, intolerant, highly politicized climate crusader.
20-year IPCC veteran Richard Tol says that entity is politicized and biased. Ecologist Daniel Botkin says there’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ it’s also wrong about species extinction risks.
Help annotate the new IPCC report so that it’s more user friendly – and more informative about its authors and source material.
The New York Times publishes pablum about the IPCC.
Greenpeace isn’t anti-establishment anymore. Now it’s just another arm of the authoritarian, UN green machine.
In Berlin this week, environmental activists were allowed to attend a four-day meeting that journalists were denied access to. This is normal IPCC procedure.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the marine biologist who led the IPCC’s Ocean chapter, is a full-blown environmental activist. He recently wrote a politicized foreword to a WWF brochure, and has a long history of employment with both the WWF and Greenpeace.
In one chapter alone, IPCC personnel relied on unpublished studies 21 times to make their case.
An IPCC document produced for its meeting in Yokohama uses emphatically activist language. What happened to the scientific body delivering a scientific report based on scientific research?
Manipulation of a Summary document makes the UN’s climate panel look like an overly-protective, hysterical mother.
How does the new climate report compare to the last one? Has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pulled up its socks?
The IPCC’s Chapter 7 was not written by neutral, dispassionate scholars. Three UN employees are among its authors.
As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.
A research paper doesn’t talk about increased crop damage by insects. But as occurred in the Himalayan glacier incident, the erroneous claim remains in the about-to-be released report.
The upcoming Working Group 2 report wasn’t thoroughly scrutinized by hundreds of external reviewers. Those people saw only early versions of the report. Unpublished research findings were still being incorporated months later.
At the United Nations, science doesn’t speak for itself. It’s hammered out during secret, all-nighter negotiating sessions.
Chris Field – the head of the UN climate panel’s Working Group 2 – thinks the world “is staring down the barrel of climate change.”
15 months ago, it was a sin to declare out loud that the global temperature was no longer rising. Today, the IPCC, the UK Met office, and mainstream researchers are all admitting the obvious.
A bona fide climate scientist tells US Senators we have no idea whether human-caused global warming will be a serious problem. The media doesn’t report it.
Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”
My work is being discussed in prominent newspapers and magazines – in Germany as well as the US.
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
The New York Times reports on the IPCC leak I publicized yesterday.
I’ve been interviewed regarding the UN climate panel’s recent announcement. In my view, its future is bleak.
Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors.
With attention focused on the IPCC’s imminent Working Group 1 report, a prestigious science journal has published a misleadingly-headlined profile of Working Group 3 co-chair, Ottmar Edenhofer.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
Rajendra Pachauri holds only one PhD – not two, as his official IPCC bio claims.
A UN press release falsely describes those attending an IPCC meeting as “climate scientists,” In fact, these people are policy wonks, economists, political scientists, and UN advisors.
If the IPCC was a scientific body, the science section of its upcoming report would be summarized by scientists and that would be the end of the matter. Instead, the science summary will be the battleground at a 4-day political gathering.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
The full text of an interview I recently gave to FoxNews – and a link to the story.
The head of the IPCC thinks “a large part of the human species” is endangered by climate change. Apparently that makes him an optimist.
The IPCC’s response to the leak of three data sticks is typical of that organization. It expects us to accept its version of reality at face value. Its statement provides no opportunity for the public to draw its own conclusions.
Simon Barnett has created a wonderful analysis tool for the new IPCC data.
The scientists who write IPCC reports have so little authority that changing the word “systems” to “ecosystems” involves multiple layers of bureaucracy.
IPCC review editors were supposed to file a report last September. A third of them apparently didn’t bother.
The Legal and Liaison Officer of the IPCC has sent me a boilerplate notice, requesting the removal of Secret Santa documents from my website.
Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.
Months before authors were even selected to write an upcoming IPCC report, its chairman was telling a live audience what conclusion that report would reach.
IPCC officials are telling Working Group 2 authors about scientific papers that haven’t been written yet. These papers will appear in a special edition of a journal guest-edited by an activist scientist.
Hundreds of souls have volunteered to serve as IPCC expert reviewers. But the review process lacks integrity – and the system is being gamed.
The IPCC describes itself as a completely transparent organization. If that is the case, the draft chapters of its upcoming report that were leaked on the Internet yesterday should be a non-issue.
Forget every media claim you’ve ever read about the IPCC being a “gold standard” organization. It now admits it’s just an ordinary UN organization following ordinary UN rules.
Ideas being promoted by ‘climate scientists’ look increasingly scary.
The next IPCC report will include a chapter that discusses gender inequality, marginalized populations, and traditional knowledge. So much for providing “rigorous…scientific information.”
The author of a 2007 book on climate change failed to mention his own IPCC involvement while pointing to that body as an authority. This is called an undisclosed conflict-of-interest.
How can claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is objective be taken seriously when one of its authors has been arrested at an anti-coal protest?
Will a load-of-nonsense IPCC press release be corrected?
The head of what is supposed to be a neutral scientific body saw no impropriety recently in accepting an award that applauds his environmental activism.
A Dutch professor has examined a draft of the upcoming IPCC report. He says it has been written by people who assume things that haven’t yet been proven, are selective about what material they consider, and reach decisions by a show of hands.
A powerful lobby group supplied their meeting space, helped with their travel documents & subsidized their meals. Top IPCC scientists went along for the ride.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to be a neutral and impartial body. But its chairman is encouraging business students to be green activists.
Newly released e-mails shed light on internal IPCC politics.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has systematically misled us regarding the quality and kind of material his organization consults.
The UK’s Guardian newspaper has published a fawning article about IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. But the article is pure propaganda. It was written by the Natural Resources Defense Council – a green lobby group that fancies itself “the Earth’s best defense.”
Many IPCC authors were chosen for reasons other than impressive scholarly track records.
At the end of 2011 Treehugger.com continues to portray IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri as a saint.
A person who “played no role whatsoever” in an IPCC chapter nevertheless signed a statement that claimed otherwise.
Delinquent teenagers never take responsibility for their own actions. After they’ve set fire to the the neighbour’s sofa they insist the real issue is that the cops got the time slightly wrong.
I trusted the IPCC’s website when it listed the lead authors of one of its chapters. If that list is wrong am I the party who hasn’t been careful?
Most chapters in Working Group 1 of the 2007 Climate Bible contained at least one scientist who is affiliated with professional climate lobbyists. In one instance, four of the lead authors were tainted in this manner.
The World Wildlife Fund says the charge that scientists linked to its organization have infiltrated the IPCC is ‘ludicrous.’ I suppose it’s a total coincidence that more than 2/3rds of the IPCC report’s chapters included at least one WWF-affiliated individual.
Please consider leaving a review of my book on the Amazon store websites. These reviews really do matter.
Digital editions of my book can now be purchased from Amazon.com, as well as Amazon outlets in the UK, Germany, and France. An instantly-downloadable PDF edition is also available.
40 people belonged to the IPCC’s 2007 ‘core writing team.’ 11 of them have documented links to either the World Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace.
The scientists on this list either played some role in the 2007 Climate Bible or are helping to write the next one expected to be completed in 2013. In many cases, they’re doing dual duty.
All of them have a documented, public relationship with professional lobbyists.
The erroneous Himalayan glacier prediction was based on a WWF report. The IPCC chapter in which that mistake occurred was led by two WWF-affiliated scientists.
Two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters include personnel affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund. Fifteen chapters were led by WWF-affiliated scientists.
Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund recruited 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” to help it heighten the public’s sense of urgency.
My book-length exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be available soon.
A year after a damning assessment was released, the IPCC continues to thumb its nose at key recommendations.
We’re supposed to trust the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusions because it relies on peer-reviewed scientific literature. But many of the people who run scientific journals also write IPCC reports. This is a circular, incestuous process.
17 years ago a Greenpeace report titled The Climate Time Bomb tried to frighten us with lurid images and dire predictions that have since failed.
When hundreds of Canadian scientists – and 12 science bodies – joined a World Wildlife Fund ad campaign they undermined their own authority. They became politically-motivated actors in a political discussion.
Where, on the CV of a person employed by Greenpeace for the past 17 years, does it say distinguished scientist?
Skeptical climate scientist Chris de Freitas has been savaged by a journalist who complains that 3,000-page IPCC reports aren’t on his Geography 101 reading list.
How does calling me stupid and equating me with a Holocaust denier advance the debate? Is the fate of the planet really at stake – or are we just playacting in a sandbox?
Greenpeace has seen the light. Years after it became the norm in climate science to hoard & hide data, Greenpeace is now complaining about such behaviour.
My book has a new title – and will be available in September.
Can you point me to science textbooks, government documents, or websites of reputable organizations where the Michael Mann hockey stick graph appears?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is supposed to stick to the science. But not only do its leaders make political pronouncements – these pronouncements are startlingly unsophisticated.
The scientific community expects us to trust its judgment on the question of whether global warming is the fault of human beings. But its response to the Chris Landsea affair demonstrates that that judgment is impaired.
There’s a link between hurricane expert Chris Landsea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. That link is James J. McCarthy.
The credibility of the IPCC has long been in tatters. There have been multiple calls for the resignation of its chairman. Rather than addressing this state of affairs, the head of the IPCC thinks corporate entities should change their ways – because we live in a world in which “reputation and public opinion are extremely important.”
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says responding to climate change is part of a larger goal: transforming the world economy.
Who knew that green groups – and those with business interests in renewable energy – have access to such obscene amounts of money?
A recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report once again relies on research conducted by Greenpeace. Once again, Greenpeace personnel are serving as IPCC lead authors.
Activists, politicians, and journalists love to play the ‘science says’ game when talking about global warming. But scientific facts are one thing. How best to respond to those facts is a completely different discussion – in which we all deserve a voice.
An IPCC official thinks that quadrupling gasoline prices could help save the planet. What effect such a policy would have on human beings appears to be irrelevant.
You gotta love the UN. The 31-member IPCC bureau includes representatives from undemocratic and unsavoury countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Malaysia, Madagascar and the Maldives. Soon, these countries may be deciding the fate of billions of UN-administered climate change funds.
An opinion piece in Scientific America alleges that, over the long term, a great deal of scientific research turns out not to be true. Independent replication of research findings is apparently far less common than we think.
Climate activists have long argued that scientific research that has been peer-reviewed is reliable, trustworthy & true.
A prominent UK civil servant has issued a plea for climate sanity that is less-than-kind to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Last year a committee investigating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told it to pull up its socks and follow its own rules. This week, the IPCC decided to jettison an important rule instead.
When British delegates attempt to censor speakers at a Russian Academy of Science climate change event that’s a clue that science has left the building.
A new 1,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report appears to ignore both nuclear power and shale gas – even though both these energy sources emit far less CO2 than does coal. This suggests the IPCC’s top priority isn’t emissions reduction after all.
The IPCC has released a 26-page summary of a new report 3 weeks ahead of the 1,000-page full document. This is an example of how the IPCC manipulates media coverage. Journalists can’t compare the summary to the real thing.
Written by a senior Australian scientist, The Climate Caper explores some of the reasons why official IPCC science has become so pervasive. For one thing, it’s affiliated with huge government agencies employing large numbers of civil servant scientists.
When a cycling group told its members they were going to hear from a Nobel laureate, it didn’t explain that climate modeler Philip Duffy’s contribution to a decade-old IPCC report was limited – and tainted by conflict-of-interest.
Each IPCC report includes a chapter that evaluates climate models. Is this written by disinterested parties who take a cold, hard look at the strengths & weaknesses of these analytical tools? Nope. It’s authored by people whose livelihoods depend on climate models.
Perhaps the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change doesn’t regard activist scientists as damaged goods because neither the National Academy of Sciences nor the American Association for the Advancement of Science does, either.
Jennifer Morgan was recently recruited to help prepare the upcoming edition of the climate bible. Rather than being one of the world’s finest scientific minds she is a professional activist – as in chief climate change spokesperson for the World Wildlife Fund.
One of the most senior authors for the upcoming climate bible has spent the past 17 years cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
New Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines declare that blogs “are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports.” Yet these same guidelines say nothing about advocacy literature published by groups such as Greenpeace.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has taken the time to write down some rules of the road. But it has never hired any traffic cops.
A year ago a group of volunteers from 12 countries struck a blow for truth-in-advertising. Our audit revealed that 1 in 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report references are to non-peer-reviewed literature. For years we’ve been told the climate bible relies exclusively on peer-reviewed research.
In 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme published a map suggesting there’d be 50 million climate refugees by 2010. When a writer called attention to this failed prediction recently, the map disappeared.
Rajendra Pachauri, as chairman of what is supposed to be a respectable science body, has – with deliberation and forethought – publicly linked that body to left-wing political analysis and activism.
Before the IPCC was even founded, the Worldwatch Institute had already declared that global warming was caused by fossil fuels. Surely that makes the IPCC chairman’s decision to fraternize with this activist organization a bit awkward.
Rajendra Pachauri does not display the aloof, dispassionate demeanour traditionally evoked by the term “scientist.” Instead, he repeatedly lends the good name of the scientific body he chairs to activist endeavours.
Actions speak louder the words. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims to be impartial and evenhanded – but that’s not how it behaves.
A small group of IPCC insiders filled as many as seven different roles each during the writing of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
A Q&A with Francis Zwiers, Canada’s most senior IPCC official, regarding his recent testimony in Washington, DC.
We’ve been told more than 400 people answered a questionnaire about the IPCC last year. So far, only 232 records have been made public. No one will explain why.
I’ve compiled a database of more than 160 quotes about the IPCC. Here are examples of journalists, government officials, and activists repeating the highly-questionable IPCC marketing message.
How does someone who hasn’t yet earned their doctorate get nominated by their own government for IPCC duty multiple times? How does the IPCC, which claims to be comprised of the world’s top scientists, repeatedly select this person to fill senior roles?
The mere presence of environmental activists undermines the integrity of scientific endeavours. Yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has long embraced Greenpeace personnel.
In 1970s and ’80s some scientists already believed human CO2 emissions would cause global warming. How do we know the IPCC’s 2007 conclusions weren’t preordained?
An expert who testified to Congress this week reached well beyond his own scientific expertise. By advocating a particular response to climate change he brings science into disrepute.
Why did a Canadian expert fly 2,500 miles across three time zones to testify in Washington, DC this week when there are plenty of US experts? And who footed the bill?
Why is a Vice President of an activist group taking part in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change workshops – and serving as a review editor for the upcoming edition of the climate bible?
Sari Kovats helped write three editions of the climate bible. But the institution where she recently earned her doctorate won’t confirm the date.
Two physics professors – one in America and one in the UK – are condemning the behaviour of prominent climate scientists. They say it’s a violation of scientific honesty and integrity.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change thinks you and your children should feel chilly in the winter and too hot in the summer. He also thinks it’s his business to decide what amount of meat consumption is healthy and desirable.
An award-winning meteorologist says he’s ashamed of – and embarrassed by – his profession.
Two activist scientists, both committed to the climate change fight, have starkly different views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One says it’s the most “rigorous scientific process” in which he has been involved. The other says it isn’t good science, but “lowest-common-denominator-science.”
A full 13 years before the IPCC was born its first chairman seems to have already decided that fossil fuels affected the climate so adversely their use would need to be curtailed.
President Obama’s science advisor says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change bases its conclusions on source material that has been vetted in excruciating detail. According to IPCC insiders, this is bunk.
A recently-released collection of candid insider comments confirms many of our worst fears about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
According to insiders, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change selects its authors via a secretive process. Nothing prevents scientists belonging to certain schools-of-thought from dominating the reports that get produced.
Governments around the world are convinced CO2 emissions are dangerous. Where did they get that idea? From computer models that even IPCC insiders say are uncertain, unreliable, and unvalidated.
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is dysfunctional and unaccountable. That Rajendra Pachauri remains as its chairman – despite widespread calls for his resignation – is proof of this.
The IPCC documents most likely to be read by outsiders – the Summaries for Policymakers – are not scientific statements at all. Rather, they are the result of a messy, arduous political negotiation that pits scientists against politicians.
According to scientists who’ve helped write its reports, the IPCC is not a scientific body first and foremost. Rather, its primary purpose is to lay the necessary groundwork so that an international climate change treaty can be negotiated.
How often does the media imply that IPCC Peace Prize winners are scientific Nobel laureates?
What do IPCC insiders really think of chairman Rajendra Pachauri?
IPCC insiders say non-peer-reviewed literature is essential and unavoidable when they write one of the world’s most important reports. Yet chairman Pachauri has, for years, insisted only peer-reviewed material gets used. Why haven’t scientific organizations set the record straight?
IPCC insiders say many of those who shared in the 2007 Peace Prize lack appropriate scientific credentials. They were selected because they are of the right gender or come from the right country.
A news story tells us we should believe a report because a “Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist” is associated with it. But the Nobel turns out to be the same Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore – and the report’s findings are highly improbable.
According to some people, only a “climatologist” can be a credible scientific voice in the climate debate. Why do we spend so much time trying to disqualify people – rather than addressing their ideas?
A senior author thinks the IPCC should take a stand by declaring Freedom of Information requests a form of harassment.
Should AGW proponents acknowledge critics? Or should they avert their eyes and block their ears?
Why does the media keep interviewing a meteorologist about droughts & floods instead of those with genuine expertise?
Opinions regarding how the IPCC deals with errors are diverse. They can also be provocative. One IPCC official thinks public scrutiny of its reports should be discouraged.
In early 2009 the Los Angeles Times said hot, dry Australia was a warning to us all – and that things would only get worse. The very next year, dry areas were flooded and snow fell during the summer.
A writer fabricates imaginary Osama bin Laden opinions. Then he fabricates imaginary climate skeptic opinions. The fact that they’re identical, he says, proves that skeptics are morally reprehensible “deniers” who should be ignored.