More Scientific Scandals of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change

article top


BY MICHAEL R. FOX PHD – The controversy about man-made Global Warming has continued for more than 20 years.  A major reason for the controversy has been the lack of physical evidence that shows the effect of man on global warming, in spite of the tens of billions that have been spent in this effort.


While this has enriched thousands, brought fame and funding of many academic and research bureaucracies, it also empowered government agencies by giving so-called “legitimacy” to discredited science and energy policies.

The fortune and reputation of the IPCC have fallen in disgrace because they haven’t produced the evidence.  They did produce the discredited “hockeystick graph”, a chart that incorrectly portrays the last 1000 years of global temperatures (
They also suffered damage from the famous “climategate scandals”, where climate scientists, graduate students, government officials, UN officials, and IPCC leaders were found corrupting climate science and the peer review process, launching personal attacks and  using intimidation.  As a result little remains of the IPCC research and their leaders which can be taken seriously.

Their working assumption (which has been written into their foundation documents), has been a search that has been limited to only man-made causes of the greenhouse effects, global warming, global climate change, global climate disruptions, etc.  (The language of the warming lobby keeps changing, is much more vague, and undefined.  Such vague terminology allows them to claim nearly all forms of climate changes to be blamed upon the despised Western nations—a code word for the United States).

Remarkably, in many ways the global warming lobby is being repeatedly caught in highly inappropriate activities well outside the practices of honest science.

We’ve seen the evidence of the warmers massaging the global temperature data which is never done among honest scientists. Since science is driven by measurable, observable, replicable data, the original data in such studies must be retained unchanged and unmodified.  This scientific practice is essential yet has been widely ignored in the warming lobby, and data modifications became habitual. (

Chart #3 in the linked source by Steve Goddard (below) is an excellent portrayal of how massaging the temperature data misrepresented the 20th century history of global temperatures. It blinks back and forth between the original data and the manipulated data, showing the desired upward temperature trend over the past 100 years where it didn’t exist before in the original data. (

The resulting temperature increase for the latter part of the 20th century is nearly 0.5 C.  When expecting an observed temperature increase of about 1 deg C per century, fudging half this difference by data manipulation is a major offense.

Much of the original climate data has been lost or ignored (as with the 90,000 pieces of CO2 evidence collected and published by Georg Beck (  Worse, such data and computer models were often not shared with peers who wished to test the data and replicate these results. (  The number of temperature stations has been significantly reduced over the years which make any resulting global “average” highly suspect, if not biased and/or irrelevant. Several reasons are involved with creating this highly suspect body of temperature data.

Richard Foot reported some of these problems in the Canadian paper The National Post, regarding the selection of the temperature stations of Canada (   He cites Joseph d’Aleo and E. Michael Smith who say “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and another U.S. agency, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have not only reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database, but have “cherry picked” the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea — which has a warming effect on winter weather.”

Foot continues “Over the past two decades, they (NOAA and GISS) say, “the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.”

Using the agency’s own figures, d’Aleo and Smith shows that in 1991, “almost a quarter of NOAA’s Canadian temperature data came from stations in the high Arctic. The same region contributes only 3% of the Canadian data today. They continue “the percentage of [Canadian] stations in the lower elevations tripled and those at higher elevations, above 300 feet, were reduced in half.”

Obviously eliminating temperature stations at higher latitudes and higher altitudes will raise the average temperatures of those remaining.  It is also obvious there is a political and funding advantage these days to those showing warming in the climate data, science be damned.

Corrupted science, corrupted temperature data, corrupted CO2 data, and ignored major influences on the climate, ignored major parts of the essential atmospheric physics, have been incredible to discover. Many scientists have had much higher expectations.

The failures of the IPCC, the UN, the White House, the EPA, NOAA, and NASA to produce the climate evidence showing that man-made CO2 is a major problem continues.  The entire man-made-global warming controversy has been demonstrated to involved corrupt science.

Crippling the U.S. energy supplies based upon fraudulent science is dangerous to our future freedom, prosperity, and national security.  To the extent that at least one of Obama’ prominent science advisors has called for the de-industrialization of the West, the dangerous energy policies being proposed may not be accidental.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at