The Corruption of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A National Peril

article top

Courtesy Tea Party News Watch

BY MICHAEL R. FOX PHD – As time passes the global warming fiasco becomes more and more understandable, and more incredulous, more unbelievable. Hard-nosed physical evidence of man-made global warming has yet to be provided by the promoters of warming, even after a nominal $80 billion dollars have been spent in the attempt to do so. Since some of the ideas for mitigating man-made global warming (yet to be demonstrated) involve trillion dollar measures, it is crucially important that we get the science right. If we don’t get the science right, we’ll never get the policy right.


Some of the measures being considered and employed are to limit the amount of fossil fuels being used for the production of electricity and for transportation. The United States derives about 50% of its electrical energy from coal and another 20% from natural gas. Crippling these energy sources obviously will cripple the United States economy and millions of jobs in those companies using the electricity. We learned in World War 2 that a nation can be crippled or destroyed by crippling or destroying their energy production infrastructures.

We are also learning that international powers have organized into the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is part of the United Nations for the purpose of limiting or abolishing the production of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels. While the US is clearly targeted for these crippling measures other members of the UN other developing nations simply will not be implementing with these suicidal measures. The IPCC is also the brainchild of Maurice Strong, a billionaire socialist working closely with the UN. At the Rio conference of the IPCC in 1992 Maurice Strong made this statement to thousands of supporting fans and international leaders:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. (

This horrendous statement reminds one of the recent statement by Barack Obama calling for the limiting fossil fuels and the resulting skyrocketing costs of US energy costs. (

Many nations have recognized the importance of electrical energy is the development of their economies and the advancement of prosperity in their nations. China builds a large new coal plant per week, and now has some 20 nuclear power plants under construction. It has also recently completed the largest hydro facility in the world at the 3 Gorges site. Other nations have recognized the importance of large supplies of affordable energy in that some 67 new nuclear plants are currently under construction around the world and that many more are in final design.

So who are these international leaders and energy experts with so much contempt seeking to oppose reliable sources of low cost energy in the US? Who are these leaders in the UN, the IPCC, the EPA, the White House, and elsewhere so hell-bent on crippling the US economy and much of the developed world? The answers are emerging. Why the deceit and deceptions about climate evidence?

Lorne Gunter writes in the National Post ( about the IPCC using environmental groups’ literature to bolsters its major publications. For example, in 2009 and 2010 it was shown that the UN’s (IPCC) had included questionable data on Himalayan glacier melt in its major 2007 climate assessment report and that it had done so deliberately to provoke government leaders to speed up environmental legislation.

The IPCC scientist in charge of the Himalayan glacier discussions conceded he was aware at the time that the melt prediction had not been peer-reviewed, but included it anyway because we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

In other words good science be damned, what the IPCC wanted was the science fiction of glaciers melts, not sound science.

By the end of March 2010 evidence had shown that at least 16 claims of impending climate doom in the IPCC’s vaunted 2007 report had been based on work done by environmental activists, most of which had not received independent reviews before being swallowed whole by the UN climate body.

For instance, the IPCC’s insistence that up to 40% of the Amazon rain forest was under imminent threat came from a World Wildlife Fund-International Union for the Conservation of Nature joint report written by a scientist-consultant and a freelance environmental journalist.

These processes have nothing to do with science; they have nothing to do with honesty, nothing to do with sound defensible science policy. They have a lot to do with low-grade uninformed environmental advocacy being involved with international energy policy.

More recently Christopher Booker of the Telegraph ( learned more of the poor science coming from the IPCC. A very large climate report was released recently by the IPCC which was filled with outlandish claims regarding green energy.

What only came to light when the full report was published last week was the peculiar source of some of the extraordinarily ambitious claims. It was based solely on a paper co-authored last year by an employee of Greenpeace International and something called the European Renewable Energy Council. This Brussels-based body, heavily funded by the EU, lobbies the European Commission on behalf of all the main renewable industries, such as wind and solar.

The chief author of the Greenpeace paper, Sven Teske, was also a lead author on Chapter 10 of the IPCC report, which means that the report’s headline message came from a full-time environmental activist, supported by a lobby group representing those industries that stand most to benefit financially from its findings.

Greenpeace adds nothing to the serious debate of future energy supplies or climate change yet here we have the IPCC letting Greenpeace have complete access to its reports. In fact the presence of Greenpeace advice in these IPCC pages diminishes and destroys the credibility of the IPCC. See for example, this link ( Let us examine some of the words of the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore.

Too few Americans and far too few media people know anything about the environmental movement and its transformation over the past 40 years into something vastly different. In Moore’s words they have become far more extreme and whose politics is little more than neo-Marxism in green garb. Moore was quite specific and pointed out some of the characteristics of the environmental movement today:

  • Tend strongly to be anti-human
  • Anti-science and technology
  • Anti-trade and anti-capitalism
  • Anti-business
  • Anti-civilization
  • Invariably misleading

Greenpeace can hardly be considered expert in science let alone in energy policy. As Patrick Moore told me, they aren’t very interested in humans either. They are environmental hacks with financial interests in generating and spreading their nonsense with the full force and support of the IPCC, UN, and US agencies.

In a recent report Dennis Ambler describes in detail many of the personnel relationships between the IPCC, the EPA, and many of the contractors shared by each of them ( Ambler also provides some of the academic credentials of many of the people involved. Many do not have serious scientific credentials let alone in the highly specialized science of the new discipline of climate. This is not the place for looking for solid scientists or science literature and expertise. Who are these people?

David Lundgren has recently written ( that American leaders such as NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco still regard the IPCC as the “gold standard” for climate science. American leadership, both state and federal, seems incapable of separating sound science from political hearsay. They threaten the future economy of the US, our liberties, our freedoms, and national security. As a result our nation remains in great peril.





  1. Dr. Fox,

    I’ve read your work denying the science of climate change, and implore you to read – with an open mind, as all true scientists have – James Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren ( This is perhaps the world’s foremost planetary scientist. The vast majority of scientists agree on a consensus around human-induced climate change, and your denial of that consensus doesn’t make it disappear, along with increasing and overwhelming evidence that it is happening (melting permafrost, methane bubbling in the arctic, sea-level rise, polar ice loss…).

    I ask you to re-examine the evidence and consider your own grandchildren, if you have them.

  2. RESPONSE FROM THE AUTHOR: The climate has been warming and cooling for millions of years. There have been a nominal 600 periods of warming over the past 1,000,000 years. This is no evidence that current climate events differ in anyway from that climate history. Out of the last 10,500 years, 9,300 of them have been warmer than the temps of today.

    Furthermore the global warmers are being caught routinely using extremely poor data, omitting other data (especially T data which has been omitted showing cooling in many places)., fudging other data (T data, CO2 data, sea level data, glacier data, etc). None of the warmers have discussed their poor data nor the horrendous lack of data quallity and control programs, Hansen among them. He is completely untrustworthy.

    I could go on to discuss the IPCC misrepresenting a lot of climate events such as the Himalayan glacier situation (written largely by the bogus Greenpeace), the failure of the IPCC peer review processes, to the omission of 90,000 surface CO2 measurements. Books are being written summarizing these misrepresentations.

    You also are missing tthe point. This is not about whether the climate is warming or cooling. It is about whether humans are the cause. The working hypothesis can be stated “Man-made CO2 causes globaal warming”. There are huge sources of natural CO2, such as the oceans, which are estimated to contain 39,000 billion tons of dissolved CO2, the atmosphere is estimated to contain 780 Billion tons, another 2,300 billion tons come from plants, soils, and humus. The human contrbutions are estmated to be about 7.2 billion tons of CO2 annually. This number is smaller than the total estimated errors in the other 3 sources!!! The oceans emit billions of tons of CO2 annually and absorb some of it in other places. You might want to read up on Henry’s Law which discusses the solubilities of gases in water. About 97% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources. To suggest that these natural sources are not involved with climate while only man-made sources are, is ludicrous. No science that I know of has explained this.

    Basically the IPCC forbid any consideration of other natural sources of warming such as the sun. Advances are slowly being made in spite of the warmers and the IPCC,with solar irradiance, solar magnetic fields, solar magnet field variances, and how all of these interact with the impressively large cosmic ray fluxes from deep space. These likely have an effects on earthen cloud formations (and therefore our climate).
    To blame all of this on man-made CO2 along with the reams of poor data , and poor data quality certainly is not science, nor is consensus, nor do computer models produce any evidence.

  3. The LA Times featured cold fusion in ’89 before its debunking.
    Environmentalists were aghast!
    “It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich
    (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of “Climate
    Change Denial”)
    “Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could
    knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul
    Ciotti (LA  Times)
    “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to
    growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited
    sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
    “Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that
    mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura
    Nader (sister of Ralph)

    CLIMATEGATE 101: “For your eyes only…Don’t leave stuff lying around
    on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have
    been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is
    a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the
    file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
    email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his
    model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind
    that.” – Phil “Hide The Decline” Jones to Michael  “Hockey Stick” Mann

    Central alarmist blogs are owned by PR firms financed
    by green energy speculators:
    DeSmogBlog = green PR firm paid for by a $125 million online gambling
    site convicted money launderer who sells solar cells.
    RealClimate = web site registered to left wing PR firm behind the junk
    science link of vaccines to autism and the silicone breast implant
    scare which bankrupted Dow Corning.
    ClimateProgress = left wing think tank.
    “SkepticalScience” = overlaps with a nuclear weapons design firm now
    getting $330 million green energy contracts.

    Here I present A Global Warming Digest:

    -=NikFromNYC=- Ph.D. in Carbon Chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  4. As a biomedical scientist, it’s been clear for a very long time that the IPCC is an extension of the Green movement that has, unfortunately, used environmentalism as a tool to increasing governmental control since the early 1970’s. But that aside, as someone who lectures on evidence-based medicine, science and scientific fraud, it’s sadly obvious that this area of science has been highly prone to bias — revealed clearly in the E. Anglia emails in which is was clear that grant-bias and publication bias dominate the field. (And others have been made this claim for years…) In light of these emails exposing what have been long-term and pervasive biases, it’s impossible to quantify how badly corrupted the “consensus” (a misnomer used in another post below, at best a “plurality”) opinions are. Maybe they are right, maybe not. Here are the questions that need to be dispassionately answered:
    1) Is global warming underway?
    2) If so, is man responsible?
    3) If so can man do much if anything to mitigate it?
    4) Is so, should we? (cost v. benefits)

    Unfortunately, many well-intentioned folks look at this matter and succumb to their understandable notions that the sky is falling and we must do all we can to prevent the malady of global warming. Here is where the hucksterism enters. Those who hope to profit like to posit a disaster, then offer poorly defined “solutions”(that they sell) and sell the heck out of them. Enter Al Gore.

    Finally any time there is money to be made or fame to be had take everything out of observational science with a grain of salt. Hypotheses like global warming are impossible to test, say like comparing the effects of a novel drug and a placebo. The so-called “leading climate scientists in the world” built their careers on the scientific hypothesis that global warming is underway (and it’s policy cousin, namely we’ve simply GOT to do something about it). Their income, fame, labs and all the rest depend on this hypothesis.

    I don’t know that it’s a con but I don’t know that it’s not… and the East Anglia emails justifiably hurt the policies that those on the left are rushing out to solve a problem that may be there, may be not, may be severe, may be not, and/or that may not be soluble no matter what resources are applied to “solve it.”

    I realize that my comments are not going to make climate change proponents or opponents happy. But the truth is that we don’t know what’s going on, if something IS going on why, etc. (see 4 questions above). We can be reasonably assured that the surrogate variable of increasing atmospheric carbon has been increasing, but we really don’t know what it means… sorry.

  5. MR;
    the answers:
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. No
    4. No.

    Warming and CO2 are both benign, on the evidence of all history and pre-history. To assume, and insist, that THIS time it’ll be different, is pure special pleading and should be utterly disregarded.

  6. I think there are still many people in denial about global warming and I can't blame them. I look at the weather in my country and it's colder and colder every year and you can't expect everyone to understand that that's just part of the process. It's counter intuitive. Even so…'s a reality and we have to deal with it.

  7. Climate control is very important and it's sad to see that people are so selfish that they are following their won interests instead of working together to save the planet.

Comments are closed.