Once again, the ‘world’s leading scientists’ provide cover for UN machinations.
No matter how undemocratic, impoverished, sparsely-populated, or terrorism-promoting a nation might be, a sentence written by scientists will not survive if that nation objects.
On what planet is it OK for politically-determined definitions to supersede those written by actual scientists?
The IPCC publishes the citizenship and gender of its authors – but says nothing about their scientific expertise.
The latest IPCC report was a setup – a cynical ploy to produce alarmist media headlines that succeeded beautifully.
If climate research is like other research, half of the IPCC’s 6,000 academic citations are dubious.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is essentially a law unto itself, an entrenched culture with no meaningful oversight mechanisms.
IPCC official Chris Field claims the latest IPCC report set the stage for a Paris climate deal. An e-mail he sent colleagues three days ago is pure politics.
The man now in charge at the IPCC belongs to a privileged, protected, secretive entity headed by the UN’s former top climate official.
The new IPCC chairman is an economist who, ironically, began his career with oil giant Exxon.
Slides and text of my presentation to the World Federation of Scientists, 20 Aug. 2015.
A Belgian activist scientist seeking leadership of the UN climate panel flies to Pakistan – and is fawned over by the media.
The second-in-command at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wants a promotion, but has no intention of addressing critics’ concerns. Part 1 of 2.
According to a police complaint, one of the biggest names in climate science grabbed, touched, and forcibly kissed a female subordinate in the workplace.
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.
On page 25 of Chapter 2 and page 58 of Chapter 4 (Working Group 2 report of the AR5), the sole evidence the IPCC cites for a claim about the … Continue reading
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.
The UN’s climate panel claims to be a ‘scientific body.’ But it’s actually in the business of writing reports that rely on thousands of judgment calls. It’s time to stop pretending that fallible human judgment is ‘science.’
Chris Field – the head of the UN climate panel’s Working Group 2 – thinks the world “is staring down the barrel of climate change.”
Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”
The editors of Foreign Policy magazine inhabit a fairy tale world of planet-saving superheroes and wicked climate deniers.
UN climate panel leaders don’t behave in a “policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive” manner.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes itself as a “scientific body.” Where in its multi-year, multi-thousand-page bureaucratic report-writing process is science actually practiced?
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.
The latest document the IPCC doesn’t want you to see.
As the gap between its models and reality has grown, the IPCC has become more adamant that its conclusions are correct – rather than more cautious.
What do Greenpeace and the Natural History Museum have in common? They both employ people with impaired reading comprehension skills.
Greenpeace says 95% certainty is the same as 100% certainty. Tell that to people who die on the operating table.
A news clipping from 1995 – concerning an earlier IPCC report – was hilariously wrong.
Political manipulation of a scientific document – or pages upon pages of newly-discovered scientific errors? You decide.
On the basis of a politically-massaged summary and a stack of press advisories, the media has blasted IPCC talking points around the world.
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.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
It may not be wise to judge a book by its cover, but it’s entirely appropriate to judge an organization by its leader.
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.
The head of the IPCC has written a novel in which the central character is infatuated with pseudoscience and in which UFO enthusiast Shirley MacLaine is presented as credible. The final installment of the Nobel Laureate Summer Reading series.
Rajendra Pachauri holds only one PhD – not two, as his official IPCC bio claims.
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.
IPCC personnel are not the world’s “leading climate scientists.” They were chosen partly due to gender, age, and geographic considerations.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
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.
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.
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.
In an official statement, the IPCC says it’s improper for any of its personnel to describe themselves as Nobel laureates. But the statement is all but invisible on the IPCC’s website.
A lead author of the IPCC’s ‘hard science’ section is a Green Party candidate and deputy leader.
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.
The IPCC has abandoned science in favour of affirmative action.
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?
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.
When I describe the surreal world of climate science to people who are strangers to that world I know it sounds fantastical. But there are strong parallels with the recently destroyed economies of Iceland, Greece, and Ireland.
Newly released e-mails shed light on internal IPCC politics.
A person who “played no role whatsoever” in an IPCC chapter nevertheless signed a statement that claimed otherwise.
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?
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.
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.
According to the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, history is about environmental villains and bizarre motives.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
According to insiders, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rules are being ignored on the one hand – and circumvented on the other.
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.
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 senior author thinks the IPCC should take a stand by declaring Freedom of Information requests a form of harassment.
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.
An important collection of documents has entered the public domain. These are the comments 232 individuals submitted to the committee that investigated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) earlier this year.
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a climate bible with integrity.
Koko Warner is a UN employee whose research has been funded and brazenly promoted by the UN in order to advance the UN’s climate change agenda. Now she is a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
At the age of 25, Richard Klein became an IPCC lead author. He held a Masters degree, and had spent a year working for Greenpeace.
A new IPCC press release says “thousands of scientists” contribute to the climate bible. But a list of authors selected to take part in the upcoming edition contains only 831 names.
Among these is Lisa Alexander. She began writing IPCC reports a decade before she’d even earned her PhD.
Delegates to a four-day Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting chose not to replace chairman Rajendra Pachauri with someone more credible and professional. Journalists beware: nothing this man says should be taken at face value.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
The IPCC’s chairman tells us constantly that 20-30% of the planet’s species are at risk of extinction due to global warming. But experts in that field say the research on which the IPCC bases its conclusions is rubbish.
A recent medical graduate with no relevant publications was a lead author of the IPCC’s first health chapter. That report was supposed to have been written by the world’s top experts.
Entire passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report were lifted from a 1993 book authored by Anthony McMichael – the IPCC person in charge of the health chapter.
The review committee examining the IPCC process has recommended that “rigorous conflict of interest” policies be adopted. Hallelujah.
In June the IPCC put Alistair Woodward in charge of the climate bible’s health chapter. He thinks doctors should “educate and encourage” their patients in “climate change action.”
In its 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that long-term climate prediction is not possible. So why are we telling kids the world won’t be habitable by the time they grow up?
A law professor cross-examines an “expert witness” – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s climate bible. Although this document is supposed to be objective and even-handed, he says its authors frequently ignore, minimize & conceal scientific evidence that doesn’t fit the carbon-dioxide-is-the-culprit narrative.
The media frequently declares that thousands of scientists all agree that the planet’s slight warming in the late 20th century was due to human activity. In fact, only a few dozen people – working on one particular chapter of a much larger report – had a voice in that discussion.
Sudan is a troubled, impoverished nation with a questionable human rights record. Why is a representative of that country occupying one of the most senior positions with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Is the fight against climate change to be led by the violent & unsavoury?
According to the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 2007 climate bible “was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006.” So how could a paper that wasn’t accepted for publication in a scientific journal until May 2008 (29 months later) be cited multiple times?
Climate bible authors referenced numerous yet-to-be published scientific papers in order to make their case. This raises troubling questions about the role of certain editors of certain scientific journals.
We’ve been told the climate bible meets the highest standards. Guess that’s why the section dealing with global warming and North American tourism uses a number taken from a snowmobile lobby group press release.
The climate bible bases its argument on a news article that’s really a press release in disguise.
The UN’s Nobel-winning, allegedly gold-standard climate bible bases factual assertions on dodgy source material like press releases.
Ten months after the official cutoff date, and well after the expert reviewers were out of the picture, climate bible authors inserted references to the Stern Review into 12 different chapters.
“Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific” – so says Richard Tol (an economist who has participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process since the early 1990s).
The British government says 99% of the sources on which the climate bible bases its arguments should be peer-reviewed. But only 70% are.
Economist Richard Tol has written a series of blog posts regarding, among other concerns, the IPCC’s apparent use of non-peer-reviewed literature to neutralize peer-reviewed research findings.
Google pampers the already pampered at $20 million climate extravaganza.
Rabid dog climate enforcers will destroy you without conscience or regret.
People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
When a journalist thinks for herself about climate change, insults & fabrications follow.
Anonymous allegations are republished by an allegedly respectable website.
IPBES provides no CVs for most members of its influential panel.
Allegations that mining threatens wildlife rely on activist ‘evidence.’
If I’ve helped you better understand the climate debate, the IPCC, the shortcomings of academic research, or that Borg-like entity known as the United Nations, please let me know.
If I were trying to parody intrusive UN behaviour could I have invented a more absurd document?