The United Nations IPCC Report on Global Warming

The United Nations IPCC Report
on Global Warming

This page is a byproduct of the Global Warming Page.

The subject of global warming certainly seems to keep the TV news people interested, and it keeps bureaucrats busy, but all the doomsday reports I have seen are full of half-truths and one-dimensional statistics. This most recent UN report talks about carbon dioxide levels reaching twice the "pre-industrial levels" a century from now, with the mean sea level up another foot or so. This ignores the Earth's ability to self-regulate CO2 levels in the long run, the ability of modern engineering to accommodate very gradually rising sea levels, and the apparent fact that we would have to go back to "pre-industrial" civilization to fix the problem.

In the room where you are sitting right now, the temperature difference between the floor and the ceiling is about one degree. That's the kind of imperceptible change we're talking about — over the next century!

Personally, I don't see the problem if the global temperature goes up one degree over the next century, or if carbon dioxide levels are slightly higher. Both of these conditions would make it easier to grow crops and forests. And the people who live and work within one foot of sea level are already at risk, and they are aware of it.

Global climate control is simply an excuse for more government spending, more government studies, more government regulation of industry, and more government restrictions on individual liberty. The solutions are far worse than the problem.

I Accuse! I accuse the United Nations environmental program in general and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in particular of creating a huge hoax, "global warming," in order to reduce energy use and to create a phony market for so-called "carbon credits," based on the lie that carbon dioxide plays a critical role in the alleged warming process. The Earth is not warming. It is cooling. Meteorologists, climatologists, and solar physicists agree that it has been cooling for at least a decade, and they predict the cooling will continue for several decades to come.

Scientific "Consensus". [Scroll down] It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, how can a seriously flawed — if not actually fraudulent — mathematical model linking production of the relatively minuscule amount of an atmospheric trace gas be used to blame mankind for major planetary climate change? The answer lies in the intense public relations campaign launched by environmentalists worldwide following publication of the 1997 IPCC report. The entire debate has been framed by presenting only one side to the maximum extent possible while demeaning any skeptics. The worldwide distribution in 2006 of the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth added to the simplistic polarization and politicization of debate. One cannot ignore how the IPCC report initiated within the United Nations played into an anti-Capitalism agenda.

The Science of Global Warming: Saving the World or Hunting for Ghosts? [Scroll down] Those of us who have carefully studied the IPCC reports detect the numerous discrepancies between the logic of the scientists' articles in the body of the reports (and in any outside peer reviewed materials that disagree with the IPCC findings and are therefore spurned) and the rhetoric of doom and gloom in the political summaries of the reports. Scientists that complain about the polarization and the politicizing of the scientific process at the IPCC are routinely ignored, demoted, fired, or quit. Here are 50 (that's right FIFTY) articles that prove this internal dissension within the IPCC and between the leaders of the IPCC and the rest of the scientific community.

Worse Than Hockey Stick: IPCC 20th Century Simulations and Global Warming

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

A Closer Look at Climate Change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge. Let's take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The Collapse Of Credibility At The International Panel On Climate Change. In case you missed it, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently took another major hit, likely to be fatal to its dwindling integrity, authenticity, and credibility. An earlier major hit was the famous Hockeystick chart fiasco, where the last 1000 years of global temperatures as presented by the IPCC were shown to be in error.

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis. Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Eight Fallacies about Global Warming: [#7] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals. There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that manmade emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming. ... The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis.

War Over The Climate Heats Up Even As Climate Itself Cools Down. [Scroll down] Be aware that carbon dioxide may not have as much of an impact on temperatures as projected by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While their 2007 Report asserts a better-than-90% certainty that the average temperature increase over the last 50 years is human-caused, they have produced no credible evidence to back this up. None!

NIPCC Findings Contradict U.N. Report. [Scroll down] The NIPCC report shows that the evidence for AGW is not credible, and presents convincing evidence against AGW and for natural causes of climate change. So the science appears to be settled, although not in the way Al Gore has been asserting. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. There is, however, a serious problem. In the mistaken idea that something needs to be done to "combat global warming" and "save the climate," policies are arising that have the potential to distort energy decisions, and thereby severely damage national economies, make us poorer, and hurt standards of living.

"Getting Rid" of the Medieval Warming Period. The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) — a well-established phenomenon — dated from approximately 1000 to 1300 [AD], and comprised an interval during which global temperature conditions were warmer than those at present.

Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception. E.R. Beadle said, "Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does this with purpose and great effect. They built the difference between appearance and reality into their process. Unlike procedure used elsewhere, they produce and release a summary report independently and before the actual technical report is completed. This way the summary gets maximum media attention and becomes the public understanding of what the scientists said. Climate science is made to appear what it is not.

Global Warming? Bring it On!. The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent. The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad. In spite of this fact, it is likely that the new U.S. Democratic Congress and Administration will once again proclaim that they know better than we do about such things.

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists — in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed 'unusual warming' based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.

IPCC Author Selection Process Plagued by Bias, Cronyism: Study. "The IPCC is a single-interest organization, whose charter directs it to assume that there is a human influence on climate, rather than to consider whether the influence may be negligible," lead author John McLean, an Australian researcher, observes in the study. The study documents that instead of seeking input from a wide array of scientists representing a broad swath of the scientific community, IPCC's climate science assessment is dominated by a small clique of alarmists who frequently work closely with each other outside the IPCC process.

United Nations Deceptions. The British newspaper, The Observer, had an article about the views of Dr. Rajendra Patchauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "UN says eat less meat to curb global warming" was the headline. Dr. Patchauri — surprise, surprise — is a vegetarian. He also heads a UN agency whose "science" has been completely discredited, based as it is on computer models that conveniently massage their data to arrive at predetermined conclusions. That same data in the hands of other scientists tends to produce the opposite conclusion.

The 'consensus' on climate change is a catastrophe in itself. The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a "consensus" that world temperatures are rising disastrously, and that the only plausible cause has been rising levels of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases. In fact, as has become ever more apparent over the past 20 years — not least thanks to the evidence of a succession of scientists who have participated in the IPCC itself — the reality of this curious body could scarcely be more different. It is not so much a scientific as a political organisation.

A clear and present danger: Scientists with political motives. Ottawa Citizen writer Nicholas Read's comment in the October 12th article that, "Stepping into a political fray is almost unheard of for a scientist, especially one of [Andrew] Weaver's stature" illustrates his lack of understanding of the formation, mandate, structure and activities of the IPCC, all of which are purely political. They only examine human causes of climate change and though they say their work is not to be used as a basis for policy formulation, the IPCC produces a Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which is the only IPCC document most governments read. They seem to not know that the SPM is written independently of the main science report and released months before the report it is supposedly summarizing. In reality, the IPCC science report is edited to ensure it agrees with the Summary.

The inconvenient lies of the IPCC: World leaders consistently cite the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis for their policies on energy and environment. … which is unfortunate because the IPCC position is based on an unproven theory tested with a computer model designed to prove the theory, but which consistently produces results that don't match reality. Ironically, it is their definitive positions and statements that provide the evidence for their tangled web.

UN's IPCC preying on people's ignorance. While the political and propaganda campaigns were successful, the science continued to prove defiant. But that wasn't a concern for the cabal functioning through the IPCC because they knew the public didn't understand the science. Now the exploitation of lack of knowledge could proceed. A few brave scientific souls resisted the political pressure.

The IPCC: On the Run at Last. The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never been strong on empirical science. Endless circumstantial scare campaigns have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one inescapable problem — as does Mr. Al Gore's over-hyped science fiction film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside normal planetary variation.

Oil is Not a fossil fuel. [Scroll down] "An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that 'hundreds of IPCC scientists' are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Almost 60% of the comments received from the 62 expert reviewers of this critical chapter were rejected by the IPCC editors and 55 of the 62 expert reviewers had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming? The IPCC authors referred to several publications which projected adverse impacts while ignoring many excellent studies which have questioned these projections. Throughout the text of this important chapter of WGII, there were many instances where adverse impact was highlighted or exaggerated, while possible beneficial impacts were totally ignored. Further, IPCC authors while assessing observed changes in natural systems chose to highlight only those changes which support the GW hypothesis while completely ignoring other observed changes which did not conform to the human-induced GW hypothesis and change.

How do we "know" that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? Out of the blue (I was then a Canadian businessman unknown to climate scientists), I emailed Michael Mann, the primary author, inquiring as to the location of the MBH98 proxy data. To my astonishment, Mann replied that he had "forgotten" the exact location, but that an associate would locate it for me. The associate said that the data did not exist in any one location, but that he would get it together for me. I was dumbfounded. Here was a study that had been on the front page of the IPCC study, used in brochures sent to every household in Canada and there was no due diligence package. [11 megabyte PDF file.]

Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground, Ignoring Science. What is systematically omitted from the [Summary for Policymakers] are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment. Starting in 1990, the IPCC produced Reports each increasing the probability there was clear evidence of a human cause of initially global warming and then climate change. Claim after claim was discredited but this did not stop the process.

Man-Made Global Warming Is Politics Not Science. This is a political document. … The "scientific" document is still being edited and will not be issued for several months. Yet the buggy whip media is using the political document to gin up hysteria among the gullible masses. None of the fear mongers in the buggy whip press are bothering to mention the fact that the political document says right in the beginning that the "scientific" document is being edited to conform to the already released summary.

The media snowjob on global warming. Whatever the IPCC and its defenders claim, the Washington Post and most other outlets report without scrutiny. Meanwhile, the motives and sources of all sceptics are instantly suspected and derided. There's nothing wrong with scrutinizing the motives of people engaged in a dicey debate. The subjectivity arises from scrutinizing only one side and always with a preconceived notion of what you are going to find. Such bias is typical, though, of the climate debate, and not just among reporters and editors.

How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming: In previous related articles … we examined how environmentalism and particularly climate was hijacked to achieve the political goals of Maurice Strong, primarily to cause the demise of industrialized nations. We saw how he established the political vehicle the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the scientific vehicle, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for his purpose.

Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies. How did the IPCC maintain control and convince many, including political leaders they were right and were the authority? Beyond using UN agencies as vehicles they had the challenge of running an apparently open process while keeping total control.

The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming: In previous parts of this series I've shown how a political agenda took over climate science primarily through the UN and specifically the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The agenda was spread to the world at the 1992 Rio Conference. Periodic Reports from the IPCC maintained the focus on CO2 and increased the political pressure. Please understand I am not claiming a conspiracy, but rather a cabal, which is defined as a secret political clique pushing a political agenda; in this case, designed by Maurice Strong.

U.N. Climate Distractions: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just issued the final installment of its year-long scare-the-pants-off-the public assessment of global warming. It should come as no surprise that, according to the U.N., 257 years of western development and progress has placed the Earth in imminent danger of utter disaster and that the only way to save the planet is to drink the U.N. Kool-Aid and knuckle under to global government-directed energy rationing and economic planning.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax: It's an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over — '2,500 scientists of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis'. But it's not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled.

Should We Believe the UN Climate Report? The UN Climate Change panel is asserting — again — that humans are overheating the planet. Again, they have no evidence to support their claim -- but they want the U.S. to cut its energy use by perhaps 80 percent just in case. Stabilizing greenhouse gases means no personal cars, no air-conditioning, no vacation travel. Nancy Pelosi says one-third of the Senate want this too.

Don't Rush To Judgment on U.N.'s IPCC Global Warming Summary. A summary of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC Report) was released on February 2, and many in the media and Congress are citing it as further evidence that global warming is a dire threat. The full report, with accompanying scientific assessment and detailed assumptions, will not be released for several months. However, caution is warranted in drawing policy conclusions based on this summary, as the full scientific debate over the IPCC report has not begun.

UN Global Warming Panel Preparing to Scare Again. Their 1996 report, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, fraudulently claimed it saw "a discernible human influence" on the current climate. The IPCC is apparently determined to keep repeating that admitted lie.

Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming. Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

Just the facts. The chorus of cheers that on Feb. 2 greeted the release of a summary of findings by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is only the latest example of a hardening political consensus around a subject on which there is still scientific debate. What has happened is that climate change and the human role therein have now become a kind of orthodoxy that you question at your peril if you are a scientist or a politician.

Media Promote Global Warming Fraud. The IPCC's decidedly unscientific approach has come under attack from Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl, who declared, "In the past, scientists had to do their research before the implications for policymaking could have been derived from this research." Mocking the U.N. process, he commented, "Today, the vastly superior postmodern scientific method of the IPCC members allows them to publish the summary for policymakers first."

IPCC Reduces Global Warming Projections. On February 2, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the Summary for Policymakers of its Fourth Assessment, even though the full report will not be released for three months. The summary claims there is an increasing likelihood that humans are causing a warming of the climate, but it also predicts less global warming than was forecast by previous IPCC reports.

Still Dodging the Truth About Global Warming. Global warming alarmism is in the air once again, complete with claims of "overwhelming evidence" showing human activity is responsible for global warming. Or maybe not. A draft report from a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was inadvertently made available on the Internet by a U.S. government committee. The IPCC — a political body created by the United Nations, not a scientific body — has been the source of false alarms before. Its new report appears to be no different.

Global Warming: A Science and Economics Update. Most of the so-called "news" stories about this report didn't explain that what was released wasn't a new "study" that increases our knowledge of global warming, but just a political document written by U.N. bureaucrats -- not real scientists -- and edited behind closed doors, not subject to peer review, and it was just an executive summary of one part of a three-part study that won't even be released for another three months. Obviously, this is not how real science is conducted or released.

Cool heads missing in the pressure cooker. The first thing that strikes you on reading the latest consensus report from the world's climate scientists about the effect of global warming is that it is like the plot of an Armageddon movie. … The next thing that strikes you about the report is the high degree of uncertainty to which the authors readily confess. Climate change, the scientists write, "is taken to be due to both natural variability and human activities. The relative proportions are unknown unless otherwise stated".

Chicken Little and global warming. You know that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here's a flash: It wasn't the big, new United Nations report on global warming. Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May.

The Church of Climate Panic. Christopher Monckton, a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, points to the neglected data in the IPCC summary. It "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by (the year) 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." ... Monckton notes that, "The U.N. has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third," and, "It now thinks pollutant particles reflecting sunlight back to space have a very strong cooling effect." As for the increase in temperature, Monckton writes, the best estimate for the effect of the CO2 level reaching "560 parts per million, twice the level of 1750, was 3.5°C in the 2001 report. Now it is down to 3°C."

Climate Change's Carnival Atmosphere: The global warming carnival hits its full stride this week in preparation for the release of the long-awaited and much-hyped United Nations report on global warming. It's unfortunate for the climateers that this week's climate science doesn't live up to all the hoopla.

What's in a 'consensus'? Yesterday [2/2/2007], the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the executive summary of its long-awaited Fourth Assessment Report on global warming. Awkwardly, the 21-page document "summarizes" a much longer report that has not yet been finished -- though that report apparently has already been formally adopted before actually existing. Few of the breathless observers commenting on the new IPCC document seem much bothered by this exercise in time travel.

Climate of Opinion. Last week's headlines about the United Nations' latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled. The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions.

Media Covering Up UN Global Warming Report's Political Agenda, Senator Inhofe Charges. The final document of the new United Nations global warming Summary for Policymakers, due out this Friday [2/2/2007], was not approved by scientists but by political delegates, Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) revealed today during a contentious debate with CNN anchor Miles O'Brien.

Scenes from the Climate Inquisition: The IPCC's release of a 21-page summary of its work a full three months before the complete 1,400-page report is due to be published is exactly the kind of maneuver that raises questions about the politicization of the IPCC process. Why the delay? In the past, official summaries of IPCC reports have sometimes overstated the consensus of scientific opinion revealed later in the fine print. ... Is the full report going to be rewritten to square more closely with the summary?

Don't ruin the economy over a tiny temperature rise. Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us. Last week's U.N. IPCC "report," for example, is not the report, but a political summary thereof.

Global Warming Very Likely Caused by Humans, UN Says. Global warming is "very likely" caused by humans, and world temperatures and sea-levels will increase by the end of the century, the United Nations said in its most comprehensive report yet on climate change. Temperatures are likely to rise by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of this century relative to the last, with a probable 2 to 4.5 degree range if carbon dioxide doubles from pre-industrial levels, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the report. Sea-level gain over the same period may range from 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches).

Back to the Environmental Issues Page
Back to the Global Warming Page
Back to the Home page