Posts Tagged ‘IPCC credibility’

Conflict-of-Interest in the IPCC’s New Chapter 7

Saturday, March 22nd, 2014

Source: No Frakking Consensuswitches and McBeth

The process by which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) writes its reports is fraught with conflict-of-interest. A startling example can be seen in Chapter 7 of the Working Group 2 report.

Scheduled to be released in a few weeks, this chapter explores how climate change might impact humanity’s food supply. You can download a leaked copy of it here.

Andrew Challinor is one of eight lead authors for Chapter 7. (There are also two chapter heads, 10 contributing authors, and two Review Editors.)  According to the headline on a University of Leeds media release issued this week, Challinor’s latest, hot-off-the-press research paper demonstrates that Climate change will reduce crop yields sooner than we thought. (more…)

Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’

Saturday, December 21st, 2013

Source:  No Frakking Consensus

CERN tunnel

CERN tunnel

Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”

Among the documents recently submitted to a UK Parliamentary committee, a live grenade nestles in the straw.

It was written by a scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.

The biography included with his submission tells us that Darriulat was spokesperson for one of the two experiments that simultaneously discovered the weak bosons and gave evidence for quarks and gluons being produced in the form of hadronic jets. (more…)

Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times

Wednesday, July 11th, 2012

Source:  UK Mail

  • Tree ring study gives first accurate climate reading back to 138BC
  • World has been slowly cooling for 2,000 years
  • World was warmer in Roman and Medieval times than it is now
  • Study of semi-fossilised trees in Finland
Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought – and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.

Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming.

It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia. (more…)


Monday, April 2nd, 2012

Source:  Dennis Avery

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted last week it had no evidence to support the various claims that the planet’s weather is becoming “more extreme.” The new IPCC report on weather extremes reads: “While there is evidence that increases in greenhouse gases have likely caused changes in some types of extremes, there is no simple answer to question of whether the climate, in general, has become more or less extreme.”

Incredibly, even this non-confirmation is false. The more correct answer is “less extreme.” Moreover, paleoclimate proxy records have already told us about the truly awful climate extremes of the past 10,000 years—most of them mega-droughts during “little ice ages.” For example, the 300-year drought that beset today’s Iraq in 2200 BC. The inhabitants all starved, and the land was left to a few nomadic shepherds until the warm phase of the 1,500-year Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle returned stable weather. Then the Tigris-Euphrates Valley produced a new irrigated agriculture and built the world’s first cities. This valley’s devastation/recovery pattern has happened at least seven different times, in the D-O’s 1,500-year rhythm.

Nor did the IPCC mention the 11th century AD mega-drought in the northern California mountains, with lake levels falling 70 feet below “normal.” At the same time, the Anasazi and dozens of other western Indian tribes were driven from their homes forever. In the Corn Belt, the mega-drought destroyed Cahokia, Illinois, the only city the AmerIndians ever built.

What about the four huge sea-floods that attacked Northern Europe over a period of about 40 years in the 12th century? Whole counties were buried under storm sands and are still buried there! Each of these massive storms drowned more than 100,000 people. The biggest drowned 300,000, from a population of perhaps 75 million. If it happened today, with the present population density,  that number might be expanded to 3 million deaths.

The ship’s logs of the British Navy reveal twice as many major land-falling Caribbean hurricanes during the latter part of the Little Ice Age (1700–1850) as during the last half of the 20th century—when the planet was supposedly warming at an “unprecedented” rate. (more…)

Devastating Criticism of the IPCC

Monday, January 2nd, 2012

Source:  Tom Nelson Blog

 Don’t miss this devastating criticism of the IPCC from a guy who contributed to all five IPCC Assessment Reports: “I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions)…I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes”

ClimateGate FOIA grepper!

From: GIORGI FILIPPO To: Chapter 10 LAs — Congbin Fu , GIORGI FILIPPO , Bruce Hewitson , Mike Hulme , Jens Christensen , Linda Mearns , Richard Jones , Hans von Storch , Peter Whetton Subject: On “what to do?” Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 16:58:02 +0200 ???(MET DST)

…First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that chapter 9 is including SRES stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results. The softened condition that the models themself have to be published does not even apply because the Japanese model for example is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual outlier version (in the old dataset the CCC model was the outlier). Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit unconfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyways, this is only my opinion for what it is worth. (more…)

Pachauri’s Green Torch Bearers

Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

Source: No frakking consensus

Pachauri, who has filled those shoes since 2002, is far from circumspect. If it was suddenly discovered, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that global climate change is 99.9% due to natural factors, nothing about his demeanor suggests Pachauri would a) believe such a finding or b) take pleasure in announcing it.We’re told the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body that conducts objective scientific assessments. But if that were the case there’s no way Rajendra Pachauri would be its chairman.

In other words, nothing about this man suggests genuine scientific impartiality. (more…)

New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies

Thursday, November 3rd, 2011

Source:  The Global Warming Policy Foundation

CCNet – 3 November 2011

The Climate Policy Network

 New Research Reveals IPCC In Bed With Green Lobbies

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. –Perry Chiaramonte, Fox News, 2 November 2011 (more…)

Glaciergate’s Other WWF Connection

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

Source:  NFC

I’ve been writing about how the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) systematically recruited scientists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to join its own, parallel, panel. Between 2004 and 2008 the WWF signed-up 130 scientists – most of whom, it said, were members of the IPCC (please see my earlier posts here, here, and here).

The fact that these scientists were incapable of understanding that it was wildly improper to join an organization with a climate change axe to grind at the same time that they were supposed to be making careful, impartial, objective decisions about climate change tells us that advanced degrees aren’t everything.

All the education in the world is no substitute for good judgment. And, sooner or later, the chickens do come home to roost. (more…)

IPCC Green Activists

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

Source:  NFC

There was a time when I believed the marketing spin. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was comprised of the world’s top scientists. These men and women were providing a service to humanity. Rather than golfing or sailing they were volunteering their weekends. Objectively assessing the available scientific evidence, they were writing careful, impartial reports on whose integrity we could all depend.

But that was before I did some basic fact-checking. Before I discovered that this organization is riddled with activists. (more…)

Follow the Money: 78 Names at the IPCC

Sunday, October 2nd, 2011

Source: NFC

October 1, 2011

In a sensible universe, the list that appears below would be sufficient to vaporize the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – now and forever, once and for all.

Beginning in 2004 (around the time that work was beginning on the 2007 Climate Bible) the activist World Wildlife Fund (WWF) systematically began recruiting IPCC scientists. By late 2008 it says it had persuaded 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively from” the IPCC to join its parallel initiative called the Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel.

The scientists whose names appear below have not only been examining one of the world’s most important questions for the IPCC. They have a documented, public relationship with professional lobbyists who have a strong interest in influencing this matter. (For readers who are just tuning in, the WWF believes it is “nearly impossible to overstate” the threat posed by climate change – see here, backup link here.)

The people on the list below either played some role in the 2007 Climate Bible or are helping to write the next IPCC report which is expected to be completed in 2013. In many cases, they’re doing dual duty.

On this list are 23 coordinating lead authors – those the IPCC placed in charge of an entire chapter. The list also includes Osvaldo Canziani. Having served as Working Group 2 co-chair for both the 2001 and 2007 reports, he is one of the IPCC’s most senior officials. (more…)

How the IPCC Defines ‘Distinguished Scientist’

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Source:  No Frakking Consensus

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), appears to be on a media tour intended to rehabilitate both his own reputation and that of the organization he leads.


Yesterday’s article in the UK’s Telegraph may turn out to be one of a series of similar stories (backup link here). Unfortunately, there’s every indication that these accounts will be written by shockingly uninformed journalists who’ll continue to give Pachauri the benefit of the doubt.

In this instance journalist Peter Stanford falls for Pachauri’s claim that he’s being targeted in a shoot-the-messenger scenario. According to this narrative, the public doesn’t want to confront the danger of climate change so the person delivering the unwelcome news gets attacked.

Oh, please. Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case. (more…)

Forecasting Expert Calls for End to Government-Funded Research on Global Warming

Friday, April 1st, 2011

Source:  Heartland

In testimony yesterday before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology, forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania called on Congress to cease funding global warming research, programs, and advocacy organizations.

Referring to an analysis he conducted with Kesten C. Green of the University of South Australia and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Armstrong told the subcommittee, “We approach the issue of alarm over dangerous manmade global warming as a problem of forecasting temperatures over the long term. The global warming alarm is not based on what has happened, but on what will happen. In other words, it is a forecasting problem. And it is a very complex problem.”

The three researchers audited the forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose “procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles,” Armstrong noted. (more…)

Global Warming Alarmists Flip-Flop On Snowfall

Thursday, March 3rd, 2011

Source:  Forbes


Sitting in on a March 1 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) press conference regarding global warming and heavy snowfalls, I couldn’t help feeling like the chairman of the Senate committee questioning mafia capo Frank Pentangeli in Godfather II. The chairman, listening incredulously as Pentangeli contradicts a sworn written statement he had earlier given to the committee, waves the written statement in the air and protests, “We have a sworn affidavit — we have it — your sworn affidavit…. Do you deny that confession, and do you realize what will happen as a result of your denial?”

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was as straightforward as Frank Pentangeli’s earlier confession that he had killed on behalf of Michael Corleone. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported. (more…)

The UN IPCC – Influence Without Accountability

Saturday, January 29th, 2011

Source:  SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

Donna La Framboise has an excellent piece on Dr Rajendra Pachauri and highlights the emergence of a new UN body similar to the IPCC, but in respect of Bio-Diversity. This is of course another objective that was decided at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and is now being brought of the cupboard.

Mr. Chairman, Your Carriage Awaits January 28, 2011, Donna La Framboise

“According to some people the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a marvelous organization – so marvelous it should be regarded as a prototype. A month ago, therefore, the UN General Assembly formally created the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

As the press release explains, this body will be an “IPCC for Nature” which will:

in many ways mirror the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has assisted in catalyzing worldwide understanding and governmental action on global warming.

There’s just one problem. The IPCC model is utterly dysfunctional. It is a screeching, flashing, billboard-sized example of influence without accountability. For proof of this statement, one need look no further than the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri.” (more…)

An Inconvenient Provocateur

Saturday, August 21st, 2010


by Keith Kloor

UPDATE: After finishing the Q & A, do check out the comment thread where Judith Curry is actively engaged with readers.

Last week, a single blog comment by Judith Curry, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, outraged the proprietors and readers of Real Climate. Curry had mentioned the IPCC and the term “corruption” in the same sentence. I then discussed the brewing firestorm here, and that triggered a spirited exchange in the comment thread, of which Curry was an active participant.

As this exchange was playing out, I sensed that Curry was expanding on her recent controversial critique of climate scientists, while also putting forth a contrary view of the two recent probes that have exonerated scientists of wrongdoing in the affair known as Climategate.  So I asked her if I could follow up with a few questions to clarify some of her recent statements. She immediately accepted and what follows is a short Q & A, conducted via email, and reproduced in its entirety. (more…)