46 Statements By IPCC Experts AGAINST IPCC Propaganda
Thankfully, we usually get to hear the inconvenient and raw truth about taxpayer funded, unelected, bloated government bureaucracies when members eventually leave and are not subject to bullying and financial repercussions.
46 enlightening statements by IPCC, or former IPCC, experts against what the IPCC writes in its reports:
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
- Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
- Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
- 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.”
- Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only ‘greenhouse gases’ is nonsense and harmful.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
- Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
- 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.”
- Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
- 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?”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
- Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
- Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
- 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 more here: climatism
Header image: Ecometrica
Bold emphasis added
Editor’s note: Perhaps the most egregious of these statements is point 29, which states “…I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Russ D
| #
Hey Climate Whack job IDIOTS………….
Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Climate Change:
Where the weather is always your fault and the only solution is more communism.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Define “communism”. I find it near impossible to associate with those who believe in co2 as being a driver of climate, those who belief in “viruses”, pasteur methodology, religious and other “freemason” institutions, etc.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
As usual, excuse my typing, I don’t proofread much when I type things.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Alcheminister:
The theoretical abstraction of communism, first introduced by Rabbi Moses Hess disciple Marx (Moses Mordecai Levy) was a divide and conquer technique by the early industrialists (Zionists) in order to weaken the proletariat (and their potential allies the Bourgeoisie) so as to implement the ten planks that put all power in the hands of the state (elite parasites).
The same syndicate is now using the phony climate change, contrived wars and fake virus in order to induce the herd to forfeit all their natural rights so they can be herded into the Neo feudal Agenda 21 totalitarian tyranny as the ten planks of Marx manifesto called for. At the top of the list is the abolition of all property. Once property rights are lost all others will follow.
Reply
Russ D
| #
“Define “communism””
Pure EVIL!!!!
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Now that the Zionist syndicate has pushed the present fake virus medical scam as far as they can for now, they are trying to divert the goyim’s attention to the fake war in Ukraine . This fake war scam not only maintains the necessary anxiety to distract attention away from the need to stop all government involvement in using fake viruses to control the population but instills fear in order to reinforce the need for more government control and a continuation of enormous military spending. T?he fake war in Ukraine (as all wars) have diverted billions of dollars into insiders pockets. Now they are using video game footage:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/D5OzrzYSV8rs/
Reply
MattH
| #
And then you have whack job idiots conflating IPCC climate change with viruses.
The article is not about viruses.
In science you could call it contaminating the experiment. Intentionally.
I recall the editor writing, on more than one occasion, ‘please don’t feed the troll’.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
Could you quote the “conflation”?
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Frank. Thank you for the rational question. My comment was directed at you to a much lesser degree.
The conflation is the fusion of ideas that because United Nations climate hypothesis is a partial or total fraud therefore virus science is also a fraud as it to is endorsed by the U.N.
I thought that an Alcheminister was somebody who is a spiritual shepherd to those turning lead into gold. A fusion of two words.
Is your rain issue an obvious result of La Nina?
Cheers Matt
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
The Sun.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Alcheminister.
The current La Nina event has lead to a positive Southern Annular Mode which means high pressure systems shift closer towards Antarctica. This allows saturated tropical air to transcend to temperate zones and unleash tropical rain on the back of slow moving high pressure systems.
Here in New Zealand we had some serious localized flooding events as continuous airstreams af super saturated warm air was drawn South from the Coral Sea and Pacific Ocean tropics.
This week we have had our first, normally prevalent, South Westerly wind drawing cooler Southern ocean air over the country. .This is the first South Westerly rain event in my locale since early November.
Rational evaluation and understanding is an essential step in negating the corruption of climate, big pharma, the military industrial complex and the continuous flood of power and control. Generic statements advance little.
Cheers Matt
Alcheminister
| #
MattH…
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-sun-is-way-more-active-than-official-solar-weather-predictions
MattH
| #
Yes, good point. So we have more sun activity heating and expanding the Hadley cell contributing the positive Southern Annular Mode whilst the La Nina has expanded the hot water pool of the Coral Sea giving New Zealand warmer sea temperatures and super saturated rain events.
The old ‘cumulative effect’ trick. More cunning than a telephone in a shoe.
MattH
| #
PS. Thank you for the positive contribution.
Alcheminister
| #
“Virus” “science” is completely fraudulent though, so.
Reply
Alcheminister
| #
There’s a rather overt hint about that in the hepatitis article.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello MattH:
Who is the real “whack job idiot” when you are to stupid to see that the same criminals behind the IPCC ( a propaganda committee formed by the international bankers U.N.) are the same ones behind the fake virus. The IPCC came about as a direct result of the invention of “global warming” by the elites Club of Rome in 1969 originally proposed by the Rockefeller shill Maurice Strong. Shortly after another Zionist elite and proponent of the fake Soviet system, Occidental CEO Armand Hammer had his puppet actor Al Gore run with the climate scam. Followed recently by the retarded looking teen ager, Greta who in order to prevent CO2 emissions cruised over form Europe in a yacht previously owned by the Rothschilds. The crew however all flew back on on of those kerosine guzzling CO2 generating jets.
Now MattH if you weren’t so stupid you would know that the same consortium that is behind “Green Energy” is also using massive tax appropriations to implement the fake virus medical control scam. The fact that all of this appeared in the Rockefeller documents of 2012 and the first “pre pandemic” meeting was also held by fellow Zionist elite Robert Koch the same year is just a coincidence, huh MattH. Also since all the countries of any consequence are within the Zionist circle, they all had their fake PCR tests ordered back in 2018, long before covid. None of these various components including the fake virus, climate change, social disorders, subversion of education, fake shootings as in Los Vegas, fake Floyds or the use of the Hegelian dialectic of war work independently. They all go together to accomplish the same goal. None of this is a new development but each have been an intrical part of the pressure form above and pressure from below for well over a hundred years. The Zionist syndicate just depend on enough people ignoring the obvious until it is too late.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/7DMlgBGbqDkr/
https://libertygalaxy.com/rockefeller-globalism-using-health/
Reply
MattH
| #
You are just a serial abuser. Pathetic but dangerous.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello MattH:
Your victimization disorder is getting worse. You may want to go ahead and schedule an appointment with you’re personal physician, tranny Dr. Racheal (((Lavine))) for therapy.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
RGHE is not about science it is about lies, money, power and influence. UN, WHO and IPCC are all corrupted organisations and they deserve to be scrapped. Trump should make this his 2024 policy, he will get in for sure.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Hughes:
Zionist puppet actor Trump is just playing his part with all the other “leaders” to deliver the herd into agenda 2030-21:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hyPNzWCJs22c/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ui2L7IJ6kMlu/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
VERY GOOD, except … . I came here with a comment for a different PSI article and found your recent comments. My other comment is related to “except”.
Except, R.C. Sutcliffe (Weather and Climate, 1966) wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never threaten to give gain but which dissolve again into vapor before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between an overcast and clear frosty night in winter.”
Please go to my recent comment, when I get it posted.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt and PSI Readers,
I repeat (with commentary) what you (Matt) wrote because it is so, so good!!!
“The current La Nina event has lead to a positive Southern Annular Mode which means high pressure systems shift closer towards Antarctica. [Observed Fact] This allows saturated tropical air to transcend to temperate zones and unleash tropical rain on the back of slow moving high pressure systems. [Observed Fact] Here in New Zealand we had some serious localizeflooding events as continuous airstreams af super saturated warm air was drawn South from the Coral Sea and Pacific Ocean tropics. [Observed Fact] This week we have had our first, normally prevalent, South Westerly wind drawing cooler Southern ocean air over the country [Observed Fact] .This is the first South Westerly rain event in my locale since early November. [Observed Fact] Rational evaluation and understanding is an essential step in negating the corruption [Evil] of [Wrong] climate.”
My observation is that precipitation is the exhaust of the atmospheric heat engine which cause any circulation of the global atmosphere. For the fuel of these atmospheric heat engines is water vapor which primarily evaporates from the earth’s water surfaces; primarily because these water surfaces are significantly greater in area than the land surfaces. And you address the observed fact that the global ocean systems are made up of regional systems (Coral Sea and Pacific Ocean tropics.
Now I bug Mark by noting “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” (Einstein). The history of Science involves the Observed Facts that there are have been right ideas and wrong ideas. Which I understand Einstein has observed that accepted wrong ideas have caused problems which have greatly hindered PROGRESS which is the stated objective (to hinder progress) of some evil people. For just as there is RIGHT or Wrong; there is GOOD or EVIL and nothing between these two opposites.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply