What Gives? UN Climate Report (due 2022) Excludes Geologists
Geology is a key science to help our understanding of earth’s past climate. Yet, once again, the corrupt UN IPCC will deliver another biased report in 2022 that excludes ANY geologists.
Geologist, Dr Roger Higgs exposes the reasons for this shameful omission in his paper ‘IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change next report (AR6, due 2022) − 784 authors, yes 784, but again NO geologists!‘
Published at researchgate.net Dr Higgs writes:
“My Technical Note 2018-2 exposed the astonishing lack of geologists (the very scientists most qualified to speak on climate change) among the 838 (sic) authors of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5, 2013-14) of the United Nations’ IPCC.”
The IPCC’s next report, AR6, is just as much a betrayal of open and honest assessment of our planet’s climate system.
Dr Higgs explains:
“The author listings (below) show the “necessary expertise” is lacking: geologists are again excluded, rendering the collective authorship incompetent for their stated mission of reviewing the scientific literature to assess climate change. By this omission, IPCC ignores Earth’s history (!) and the copious geological evidence, latterly backed by archaeology, that sea level (barometer of global temperature, via ocean-water expansion and polar ice melt) undergoes a rapid (100-500 year) and large (1-3 metres) oscillation every 500-2,000 years, caused by volcanism and solar fluctuations, certainly not by industrial CO2! See my other 2019 technical notes here on ResearchGate, giving some of the evidence for such sea-level oscillations.”
Anyone examining the list of authors posted for the new UN climate (AR6) report can see that Dr Higgs has a point: in Working Group I (WGI), ‘The Physical Science Basis’ there are 232 authors, including meteorologists, oceanographers, climate scientists, glaciologists, physicists, geographers and computer modellers.
But nowhere will you see ANY geologists.
Meanwhile, WGII, titled ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ shows 323 authors and again among them are no geologists. Then there is WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change. This lists 229 authors and, surprise, surprise – no geologists.
So, that is a grand total 784 expert authors and not a single geologist among them. Why is this?
Dr Higgs thinks the problem is political, not scientific. He identifies that there is an unabashed political quota of authors to represent designated (politically correct) groups.
These include:
* 44% from developing countries and countries with economies in transition
* 53% new to the IPCC process
* 33% women
This ‘diversity’ is politically and ideologically concocted; not determined by excellence but rather whether the authors meet pre-approval not for what they know, but simply by being a particular identity (i.e. identity politics replacing scientific competence).
Dr Higgs laments:
”How lovely: no geologists, but at least we have politically correct quotas of women, third worlders and youngsters! Worse: the 53% “new” people are doubtless nearly all younger than 50, i.e. biased, indoctrinated through school and university with the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ fallacy.”
If the oh-so-noble UN can craft a body of authors that neatly fulfils its identity politics agenda, why then cannot it serve the interests of science and rightfully include in that group at least a small number of geologists to ensure this important field of research is adequately considered in the mix?
Higgs puts it bluntly to readers:
“Are you content that this biased, under-skilled, politically-driven organization, having judged the greatest issue of modern time, global warming, to be manmade, has unleashed multi-trillion-dollar expenditure (relentlessly raising your family’s taxes & energy bills) to cripple the global economy and downgrade human living standards worldwide?”
Read the whole paper by Dr Higgs (Geoclastica Ltd, UK) at researchgate.net (link below)
[1] Higgs, R., IPCC Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change next report (AR6, due 2022) − 784 authors, yes 784, but again NO geologists! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331974185
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Yes, no surprises here. But I don’t think the underlying agenda is to make us all poorer. What would be the point in that? I think the objective is to even out the world’s wealth in favour of developing countries and at the expense of the developed ones. By that I mean it is designed to “spread out” the consumption of fossil fuels over the global economy by attempting to ration its use by developed countries to allow the usage by developing nations to increase. Thus controlling demand for a limited resource. Sure, we will become poorer, but that is only the by product.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
….’and understanding this, demonstrates the political nature of this policy. It is nothing to do with saving the planet. That is hogwash for the eco warriors. It is all to do with the Globalist’s agenda, aiming at one world government and so requiring a one world economy. It’s going to take decades of course and thankfully, I’ll be long gone by the time the real 1984 arrives.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Proof that science is of no concern to the UN IPCC .
That really is a travesty, and ult-right fraud IMO.
Reply
turnright
| #
I see the IPCC at the top as more nefarious than attempting to level the playing field so that all nations will share in a usage of fossil fuels, while at the same time curtailing their use to improve climate.
When the Soviet Empire collapsed in the late eighties and early nineties, her fellow travelers, the stooges and lackeys of Marxism, ported over to the environmental movement since they couldn’t be supported financially anymore by the defunct apparatus. The co-founder of Green Peace has in effect stated the moral equivalent of this.
A Marxist one day and an environmentalist the next isn’t without its residual. Attitudes don’t change at the whim of political reality. They were still Marxists. How to express their Marxism… and be financially supported for it… had become their new problem.
Finding a home in the environmental movement has allowed them to rail against capitalism by way of pointing the fingers of their ulterior motive at the West. If they can, through their duplicity, decrease our industrial production, the way becomes much straighter: Marxism, in one or more of its various forms will have a much better chance of ascendancy throughout the world. This is because an industrially weak group of nations, the foremost target among them being the United States, cannot as effectively stave off and defeat a pack of ideologically driven wild dogs surrounding it. Awareness of what the Marshal Plan accomplished in Greece against the communists soon after World War II, and the brave success against the Russians with the Berlin AIrlift are examples of the good that economic strength can accomplish against runaway Leftism.
The lapdogs of communism understand that it is necessary to emasculate capitalism in order to bring about their version of a glorious New World Order. An economically strong society is much less prone to overthrow itself. A weak one, by way of having its industrial production greatly diminished, lies prostrate with its belly exposed, inviting its demise at the teeth of jackals.
Reply
John Doran
| #
Good work by Roger Higgs.
Whatever science these PC people produce will be steamrollered over by the ‘Summary For Policymakers’ process, so these hand-picked people are mostly window dressing.
This Summary For Policymakers is compiled by a purely political process, completely unscientific. It is , of course, the only part that lawmakers, or, more likely, their researchers glance at. Politicians do not read 2,000 page scientific reports.
This is one of many reasons I call the UN IPCC a fraud factory.
The exclusion of geologists from the fraud factory process further proves my point.
John Doran.
Reply
John Doran
| #
Dr. Tim Ball agrees with Roger Higgs conclusions, & goes further.
He identifies the Bankster Rockefellers as funding the CAGW/CC fraud, aided by their multi-billionaire cronies, Soros, Ted Turner & Maurice Strong who set up the UN IPCC. He names some of the bent politicians & bent “scientists”.
Bravely he sets out their endgame: a vast depopulation; a totalitarian world govt; & deindustrialisation toward a feudal future of Lords & serfs.
From my reading, I agree with him 100%.
It’s UN Agenda 21.
It’s AOC’s Green New Deal.
It’s Rothschild’s 25 point plan from 1773 for global domination.
Dr. Tim’s great little 2016 book:
Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History
The science & scandals, the politics & profiteering.
Only 121 pages, a must read.
The Rothschild ref:
Pawns In The Game, a 1955 book by WWII Canadian naval intelligence officer William Guy Carr.
The 25 point plan is in Chapter 3, on the French Revolution.
Can be read for free using the duckduckgo search engine.
The plotters condemned from their own mouths:
http://www.c3headlines.com
Click on Quotes.
John Doran.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Well said, John. Thank you!
Reply
Murray Rine
| #
John, This article peaked my interest, as I am a geologist. I did some searching and came up with at least one geologist: Darrell Kaufman, IPCC lead author for AR6, Working Group I. I look forward to your explanation or counter. Murray
Reply