46 Enlightening Statements by IPCC Experts

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth
Former President of the UN Foundation

***

Here’s what we hear when members eventually leave and are not subject to bullying and financial repercussions.

46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.”
  3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
  4. 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.”
  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
  6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
  7. 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.”
  8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible 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.”
  9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing 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.”
  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
  11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
  12. 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.”
  13. 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.”
  14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
  15. 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.”
  16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
  17. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 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.”
  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
  19. 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.”
  20. 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.”
  21. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
  22. 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.”
  23. 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.”
  24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
  25. 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.”
  26. 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.”
  27. 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.”
  28. 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.”
  29. 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.”
  30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
  31. Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
  32. 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.”
  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
  34. 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.”
  35. 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 a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
  36. 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.”
  37. Dr Murry 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.”
  38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
  39. 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 of the calculations from climate models?”
  40. 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.”
  41. 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.”
  42. 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.”
  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
  44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
  46. 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.”

See Biographies – and photos – of the dissenting IPCC scientists here:
https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/

Thanks to Sonya Porter for this link

 


9 thoughts on “46 Enlightening Statements by IPCC Experts”

  1. The first book I read – Meltdown – included where scientists had taken the IPCC to court to have their names removed from a report they did not support. I see that referred to above.

    A top quote ‘IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions,’. And another wonders why the sun is excluded from IPCC thinking – an easy one really, the IPCC is required only to look for a human cause of climate change to support the UNFCCC.

  2. Mankind is inherently myopic.
    Western leadership in particular, given its short political cycles.
    Wirth has a point, as those who care about the future and posterity can see.
    Perpetual growth, whether via expanding population or resource demand, is not sustainable.
    Humanity depends on a planetary ecosystem that functions.

    Maybe we live for today, knowing some asteroid or X flare or volcanic winter is bound to “set things right” on behalf of Terra in the future.
    Now I want to be clear, that I’m not condoning the broad sweep of AGW policy prescriptions AT ALL. And certainly not their ‘science’.

    But there will always be those at the bottom of the economic ladder,
    that cheat on environmental priorities, giving them next to none.
    And that’s not just in China or India either. Its more places than not, though.

    So there is question of responsibility and sustainability at issue,
    when it comes to the environment and resource use.
    And policy is RARELY being shaped with those concerns in mind. Vested corporate interests are too powerful.
    Quality of life must be the part of the goal, not just quantity. I do think Wirth is speaking to that.

    • The problem with your argument is that the strategy used by Wirth is that employed by despots throughout history.

      • So if those concerns have merit,
        how would you solve the problem?

        As a professional economist, I recognize the externalities (as we call them) are due to the private market failing (some pass on THEIR costs to SOCIETY as a whole) … so then what is the answer?

        I honestly don’t have a satisfactory answer, short of letting nature takes its course. Then come back in a million years to see how life on the planet plays out.

  3. Saudi Arabia is implementing Saudi Vision 2030 (SV2030), the Saudi version of the UN’s Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. SV2030 plans to end the Saudi’s domestic dependence on oil and on oil exports. The Saudi Government is advising Saudis to invest and work in the private sector and develop a ‘sustainable economy’. SV2030 includes increased military spending. Saudi Arabia is now partnered with the USA and Israel against Iran. Those who oppose or stand in the way of SV2030 have been dealt with by confiscation of their property, torture, and assassination. See Link: Saudi Vision 2030 Goals https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/27799powerpointpresentationsaudi.pdf

    According to Wikipedia, “Saudi Vision 2030 is a plan to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil, diversify its economy, and develop public service sectors such as health, education, infrastructure, recreation and tourism. Goals include reinforcing economic and investment activities, increasing non-oil industry trade between countries through goods and consumer products, and increasing government spending on the military, manufacturing equipment and ammunition.” See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Vision_2030

    According to Wikipedia, “A number of prominent Saudi Arabian princes, government ministers, and business people were arrested in Saudi Arabia on 4 November 2017 and the following few weeks after the creation of an anti-corruption committee led by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (aka MbS).
    The 2017 purge of the Saudi political and business elite was followed in 2018 by arrests of 17 women’s rights activists… Another victim was Suliman Abdul Rahman al-Thuniyan, a Saudi court judge who was murdered by injection of a deadly virus when he visited a hospital for a regular health checkup. This took place after he had opposed bin Salman’s 2030 Economic Vision.” See link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%9319_Saudi_Arabian_purge

    According to the Jerusalem Post, the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by the Saudi “Tiger Squad” in 2018 because Khashoggi had made many “antisemitic tweets” and because he had criticized Saudi Arabia’s new alliance with Israel against Iran. See: https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/The-antisemitic-tweets-of-murdered-Saudi-writer-Jamal-Khashoggi-586820

    The meetings and cooperation between the Saudis and Israel to form a united front against Iran have been reported by various media outlets. See link:
    The Economist https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2015/06/11/the-new-frenemies

    Recently the Saudis have arrested dozens of Hamas supporters. See link: Saudi Arabia begins dozens of terror support trials for Hamas members: report i24News https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/1583767172-saudi-arabia-begins-dozens-of-terror-support-trials-for-hamas-members-report?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=intl_middle_east&utm_content=en1

    See also: Vision 2030 and Saudi Arabia’s Social Contract—Austerity and Transformation—by Chatham House, 2017. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2017-07-20-vision-2030-saudi-kinninmont.pdf

    Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) and SV2030 are being praised in the mainstream media, including the Huffpost and the New York Times, which calls MbS and SV2030 “the Saudi Arab Spring”. See link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/saudi-prince-mbs-arab-spring.html

    What all this shows me is that the CO2-caused Global Warming agenda is not a ‘communist plot’ per se, unless you recognize that communism has been a social engineering project supported by the Western and international bankers—which is true.
    Saudi Arabia is using its traditional brutal methods to implement SV2030, and the Saudi/US/Israeli goal is to conquer oil-rich Iran and make it ‘sustainable’.
    With most of the oil-rich nations under their control, the international bankers and ruling class will be in a better position to control the lives of their subjects.

  4. “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
    Even if the theory of global warming is wrong…”
    Timothy Wirth

    “We’ve got to try and keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.”
    Marine Colonel – Full Metal Jacket

  5. SV 2030 is the same 2030 UN program of which the head cheese is from China , and the Saud system is made in China:
    https://www.reuters.com/article/saudi-china-nuclear-idUSL8N1LB1CE

    Israel signed on with China year before last, just when I thought I’d seen it all:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-15/china-just-took-over-israels-largest-port-and-could-threaten-us-naval-operations

    The same interconnected system, the BRI goes through: The Stans , Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Greece then North to Moscow , West through Germany to London as seen on this map:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/s3/files/inline-images/bri%20china%20.jpg?itok=z9eiDhqk

    That’s all old news, now the Pandemic Trade War is just another stepping stone along the same path. You might want to look at the address of the UN HQ and find out who Slick Willy’s real father is.

  6. Is there an original source for that Wirth quote? The link is secondary and I can’t locate an initial source. When you are arguing with the AGW faithful, and even riders on the fence, original sources and original data are invaluable. Showing them a plot of over 100 years of California rainfall for example from NOAA itself can result in a “where’s the drought?” At which point I can say, “my point excatly.” Pointing them to a “skeptic” blog which doesn’t provide the original source for the quote isn’t a convincing debate tactic. They simply wrote it off as a “false fact.”

Comments are closed.