Close this search box.

New UN IPCC report warns of yet another tipping point! Give UN trillions or we die! Trump ‘poses the single greatest threat’ to climate

New UN IPCC report warns of yet another tipping point!

Give UN trillions or we die!

Trump ‘poses the single greatest threat’ to climate

UN IPCC is ‘a purely political body posing as a scientific institution’

Climate Depot reports on UN IPCC report herehere & here

Statement by Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and author of the 2018 new book: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” –
Morano: “The UN claims they were struggling with how bad to convey the allegedly ‘grim’ news about climate change. But what the media is not telling the public is these UN climate reports are self-serving reports that have predetermined outcomes. The UN hypes the climate ‘problem’ then puts itself in charge of the ‘solution.’ And the mainstream media goes along with such unmitigated nonsense. The UN even leaks their true motivation with these reports, calling for “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society. 

My new book details the many UN scientists who have resigned and turned against the UN. The UN IPCC has admitted these “solutions’ they are advocating for have nothing to do with science. Scientists are not impressed with this latest UN attempt this week to re-engineer every aspect of human life.

The Associated Press’ Seth Borenstein has attempted to bolster the scientific credentials of the UN IPCC, Borenstein wrote on October 7: “The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its gloomy report at a meeting in Incheon, South Korea.” But what Borenstein leaves out is that the UN IPCC won the Nobel PEACE Prize for political activism, not a Nobel scientific award. And there is a good reason why the UN IPCC won’t be winning any Nobel prizes for science. See below.

The UN IPCC is at it again and the media is drooling over the alarm. See:












UN issues yet another climate tipping point – Humans given only 12 more years to make ‘unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’

The new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, reveals, climate tipping points have a long history of repetition, moved deadlines and utter failure. The book documents that the earliest climate “tipping point” was issued in 1864 by MIT professor who warned of “climatic excess” unless humans changed their ways.

Book excerpt: 

Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s new 2018 best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. The section below is excerpted from  CHAPTER 13: “The Ever-Receding Tipping Point”: 

(Move over Rachel Carson! – Morano’s Politically Incorrect Climate Book outselling ‘Silent Spring’ at Earth Day – Order Your Book Copy Now! ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ By Marc Morano)

Book Excerpt – Bonus Chapter: Have We Advanced since the Middle Ages?

CHAPTER 13 The Ever-Receding Tipping Point – Page 215
Deadlines Come and Go – Page 217
The Last Chance – Page 220
“Serially Doomed” – Page 222

1864 Tipping Point Warns of “Climatic Excess”

“As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the deprivation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’” —MIT professor Leo Marx

The climate change scare campaign has always relied on arbitrary deadlines, dates by which we must act before it’s too late. Global warming advocates have drawn many lines in the sand, claiming that we must act to solve global warming—or else.

“We are running out of time. We have to get an ambitious global agreement,” warned then–UN climate chief Christiana Figueres at the 2014 People’s Climate March. “This is a huge crisis.”

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, Al Gore sought UN climate agreement—immediately. “We have to do it this year. Not next year, this year,” he demanded. “And of course the clock is ticking because Mother Nature does not do bailouts.”

Gore has warned repeatedly of the coming tipping point. Climate change “can cross a tipping point and suddenly shift into high gear,” the former vice president claimed in 2006.

Laurie David, the producer of Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, said in 2007 that “we have to have action we have
to do something right now to stop global warming.”

Prince Charles has also warned that time is running out. “We should compare the planet under threat of climate change to a sick patient,” urged the heir to the British throne.

“I fear there is not a moment to lose.”

“The clock is ticking. . . . Scientists believe that we have ten years to bring emissions under control to prevent a catastrophe,” reported ABC News.

But these “tipping points” and “last chance” claims now have a long history. The United Nations alone has spent more than a quarter of a century announcing a series of ever-shifting deadlines by which the world must act or face disaster from anthropogenic climate change.

Deadlines Come and Go

Recently, in 2014, the United Nations declared a climate “tipping point” by which the world must act to avoid dangerous global warming. “The world now has a rough deadline for action on climate change. Nations need to take aggressive action in the next 15 years to cut carbon emissions, in order to forestall the worst effects of global warming, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” reported the Boston Globe.

But way back in 1982, the UN had announced a two-decade tipping point for action on environmental issues. Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), warned on May 11, 1982, that the “world faces an ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now.” According to Tolba, lack of action would bring “by the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.”

In 1989, the UN was still trying to sell that “tipping point” to the public. According to a July 5, 1989, article in the San Jose Mercury News, Noel Brown, the then-director of the New York office of UNEP was warning of a “10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the Herald, “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.”

But in 2007, seven years after that supposed tipping point had come and gone, Rajendra Pachauri, then the chief of the UN IPPC, declared 2012 the climate deadline by which it was imperative to act: “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced his own deadline in August 2009, when he warned of “incalculable” suffering without a UN climate deal in December 2009. And in 2012, the UN gave Planet Earth another four-year reprieve. UN Foundation president and former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth called Obama’s re-election the “last window of opportunity” to get it right on climate change.

Heir to the British throne Prince Charles originally announced in March 2009 that we had “less than 100 months to alter our behavior before we risk catastrophic climate change.” As he said during a speech in Brazil, “We may yet be able to prevail and thereby to avoid bequeathing a poisoned chalice to our children and grandchildren. But we only have 100 months to act.”

To his credit, Charles stuck to this rigid timetable—at least initially. Four months later, in July 2009, he declared a ninety-six-month tipping point. At that time the media dutifully reported that “the heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James’s Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world. And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over.”

At the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in 2009, Charles was still keeping at it: “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.”

As the time expired, the Prince of Wales said in 2010, “Ladies and gentlemen we only—we now have only 86 months left before we reach the tipping point.”

By 2014, a clearly exhausted Prince Charles seemed to abandon the countdown, announcing, “We are running out of time. How many times have I found myself saying this over recent years?”

In the summer of 2017, Prince Charles’s one-hundred-month tipping point finally expired.26 What did Charles have to say? Was he giving up? Did he proclaim the end times for the planet? Far from it. Two years earlier, in 2015, Prince Charles abandoned his hundred-month countdown and gave the world a reprieve by extending his climate tipping point another thirty-five years, to the year 2050!

A July 2015 interview in the Western Morning News revealed that “His Royal Highness warns that we have just 35 years to save the planet from catastrophic climate change.” So instead of facing the expiration of his tipping point head on, the sixty-nine-year-old Charles kicked the climate doomsday deadline down the road until 2050 when he would be turning
the ripe age of 102. (Given the Royal Family’s longevity, it is possible he may still be alive for his new extended deadline.)
Former Irish President Mary Robinson issued a twenty-year tipping point in 2015, claiming that global leaders have “at most two decades to save the world.”

Al Gore announced his own ten-year climate tipping point in 2006 and again in 2008, warning that “the leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis.” In 2014, with “only two years left” before Gore’s original deadline, the climatologist Roy Spencer mocked the former vice president, saying “in the grand tradition of prophets of doom, Gore’s prognostication is not shaping up too well.”

Penn State Professor Michael Mann weighed in with a 2036 deadline. “There is an urgency to acting unlike anything we’ve seen before,” Mann explained. Media outlets reported Mann’s made a huge media splash with his prediction, noting “Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036.”

Other global warming activists chose 2047 as their deadline, while twenty governments from around the globe chose 2030 as theirs, with Reuters reporting that millions would die by 2030 if world failed to act on climate: “More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2% of GDP by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday. As global avg. temps rise due to ghg emissions, the effects on
planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by the humanitarian organization DARA.”

As we saw in chapter five, top UK scientist Sir David King warned in 2004 that that by 2100 Antarctica could be the only habitable continent.

Tipping point rhetoric seems to have exploded beginning in 2002. An analysis by Reason magazine’s Ron Bailey found that tipping points in environmental rhetoric increased dramatically in that year.

The Last Chance

Michael Mann warned that the 2015 UN Paris summit “is probably the last chance” to address climate change.38 But the reality is that every UN climate summit is hailed as the last opportunity to stop global warming.

New Lyrics to an Old Tune
Newsweek magazine weighed in with its own tipping point: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find
it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” That warning appeared in April 28, 1975, article
about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.


Here, courtesy of the great research published at Climate Change Predictions is a sampling of previous “last chance” deadlines that turned out to be—well—not the last chance after all.

Bonn, 2001: “A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance” —Time magazine, July 16, 2001

Montreal, 2005: “Climate campaigner Mark Lynas warned ‘with time running out for the global climate, your meeting in
Montreal represents the last chance for action.’” —Independent, November 28, 2005

Bali, 2007: “World leaders will converge on Bali today for the start of negotiations which experts say could be the last chance to save the Earth from catastrophic climate change.” —New Zealand Herald, December 3, 2007.

Poznan, Poland, 2008: “Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery warned, ‘This round of negotiations is likely to be
our last chance as a species to deal with the problem.’” —Age, December 9, 2008

Copenhagen, 2009: “European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told a climate conference that it was ‘the
world’s last chance to stop climate change before it passes the point of no return.’” —Reuters, February 27, 2009

Cancun, 2010: “Jairem Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, sees it as the ‘last chance’ for climate change talks to
succeed.” —Telegraph, November 29, 2010

Durban, 2011: “Durban climate change meeting is “the last chance.” Attended by over 200 countries, this week’s major UN conference has been described by many experts as humanity’s last chance to avert the disastrous effects of climate change.” —UCA News, November 28, 201140


“Serially Doomed”
Perhaps the best summary of the tipping-point phenomenon comes from UK scientist Philip Stott. “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last fifty or so years. We have been serially doomed,” Stott explained. “Our post-modern period of climate change angst can probably be traced back to the late-1960s, if not earlier. By 1973, and the ‘global cooling’ scare, it was in full swing, with predictions of the imminent collapse of the world within ten to twenty years, exacerbated by the impacts of a nuclear winter. Environmentalists were warning that, by the year 2000, the population of the US would have fallen to only 22 million. In 1987, the scare abruptly changed to ‘global warming’, and the IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was established (1988), issuing its first assessment report in 1990, which served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).



UN IPCC is ‘a purely political body posing as a scientific institution’ – Book excerpt

The new book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, reveals, that the UN IPCC is not a scientific body.  The book documents how the UN climate “sausage” is made and it’s not pretty.

Book excerpt: 

Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt from author Marc Morano’s new 2018 best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. The section below is excerpted from CHAPTER 3: “Pulled from Thin Air”:The 97 Percent “Consensus” & CHAPTER 10: Climategate: The UN IPCC Exposed

(Move over Rachel Carson! – Morano’s Politically Incorrect Climate Book outselling ‘Silent Spring’ at Earth Day – Order Your Book Copy Now! ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change’ By Marc Morano)

Book Excerpt – 

CHAPTER 3: “Pulled from Thin Air”: The 97 Percent “Consensus”


Whole Dozens of Scientists!

The notion that “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agree does not hold up to scrutiny. Fifty-two scientists participated in the much ballyhooed 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The 2013 5th Assessment Report by the UN IPCC increased the number of participating scientists by fourteen to just sixty-six scientists.

The Guardian reported on how the sausage is made for the UN IPCC reports: “Nearly 500 people must sign off on the exact wording of the summary, including the 66 expert authors, 271 officials from 115 countries, and 57 observers.”

Remember, this is allegedly a scientific process. And yet it somehow features “government officials” having a say in each line of the report’s summary.

Climate scientist Mike Hulme took apart the claim that the UN speaks for the world’s scientists. Hulme noted, “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous.”

In fact the key scientific case for CO2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. “That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields,” Hulme explained.

UN climate panel lead author William Schlesinger freely admits that very few UN scientists are climate experts. “Actually there’s a huge range of disciplines represented there. I’m going to have to give you a guess. That’s something on order of 20% have some dealing with climate,” Schlesinger conceded in 2009.

Scientists Outnumbered by Bureaucrats
In April 2014 Harvard professor Robert Stavins revealed his disgust with the UN IPCC process for which he was a lead author: “It has been an intense and exceptionally time-consuming process, which recently culminated in a grueling week. . .some 195 country delegations discussed, revised, and ultimately approved (line-by-line) the “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) . . .the resulting document should probably be called the Summary by Policymakers, rather than the Summary for Policymakers.20 During one session, Stavins said he was one of only two IPCC authors present, surrounded by “45 or 50” government officials.


UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol revealed how business at the UN climate panel, the IPCC, is really conducted. “The fact that there are people, sort of, who are nominally there does not really mean that they support what is going on. I mean, [IPCC] working group two was essentially run by a small clique of people,” Tol said after testifying to the U.S. Congress.
“Ultimately a small group forms, and it runs the thing. And unfortunately, those—those—that small group, I would think, are not the most representative or the most balanced or the most unbiased of people.”

UN IPCC expert reviewer John McLean agrees. “The reality is that the UN IPCC is in effect little more than a UN-sponsored lobby group, created specifically to investigate and push the ‘man-made warming’ line.”


The UN IPCC is stacked with environmental activists. Climate policy expert Donna Laframboise has documented the green activists who serve on the IPCC. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, for example, who has served as a lead author of the IPCC reports is “a full-blown environmental activist” with a “long history of employment with both the WWF and Greenpeace,” Laframboise’s research revealed.

“The IPCC has a very long, very sordid history of recruiting personnel linked to activist organizations,” Laframboise explained. “The World Wildlife Fund is an NGO. Greenpeace is an NGO. The people who work for those organizations are not scientific experts. They are advocates, activists, and partisans. They have an agenda. They are paid a salary to advance that agenda,” she added.

UN IPCC lead author Richard Tol has pointed out, “Governments nominate academics to the IPCC—but we should be clear that it is often the environment agencies that do the nominating.”

As Tol explained, “It is rare that a government agency with a purely scientific agenda takes the lead on IPCC matters. As a result, certain researchers are promoted at the expense of more qualified colleagues. Other competent people are excluded because their views do not match those of their government. Some authors do not have the right skills or expertise, and are nominated on the strength of their connections only.”

And the IPCC’s motivation is to generate media impact for their reports. “An ambitious team wants to make a bigger splash than last time. It’s worse than we thought. We’re all gonna die an even more horrible death than we thought six years ago. Launching a big report in one go also means that IPCC authors will compete with one another on whose chapter foresees the most terrible things,” Tol said.

CHAPTER 10: Climategate: The UN IPCC Exposed


How the Global Warming Narrative Undermines Genuine Scientific Research (an Insider Explains) – “In this atmosphere, Ph.D. students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policymakers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.” —Eduardo Zorita, UN IPCC contributing author.

The Climategate scandal revealed that the UN IPCC was simply a lobbying organization portraying itself as a science panel. If the UN failed to find carbon dioxide was a problem, it would no longer have a reason to continue studying it—or to be in charge of offering “solutions.”

Professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado has noted, “I think we can get past the lie—and it was a lie—that these activist scientists, in the words of’s Gavin Schmidt, are not taking a political stand.”

The UN IPCC reports are often used to claim the science is “settled.” New Scientist magazine once dubbed the IPCC “the gold standard of consensus on climate change science.” Well, if there was any doubt before, Climategate exposed the IPCC to be fool’s gold.

But even before Climategate, there was good reason to realize that the UN IPCC was more political than scientific.

On July 23, 2008, more than a year before the Climategate emails were leaked, John Brignell, an engineering professor emeritus at the University of Southampton who had held the chair in Industrial Instrumentation, accused the UN of censorship. “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage, it rapidly attracted acolytes. ‘Peer review’ soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship,” wrote Brignell.

“As [the] Wegman [report] demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.

In 2007, Australian climate data analyst John McLean did research into the IPCC’s peer-review process. McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process, which he called “an illusion.”
“More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 (‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change’) of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other,” McLean found. “Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.”

According to McLean, “Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community.”

As McLean explained, “To sum up, the IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter assumes a widespread human influence on climate, rather than consideration of whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether.

For example, the IPCC Summary had asserted that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” But as McLean discovered, “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented
on this chapter at all.”

Many UN scientists have publicly rejected the IPCC’s methods. (The following material on UN scientists who have turned on the UN has been adapted and updated from a speech I wrote for Senator Jim Inhofe in 2007, while working at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.) “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of
what the scientists said,” noted South African nuclear physicist and chemical engineer Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil…. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”

Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, has claimed, “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion
was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”

UN IPCC expert reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lamented that many “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” In fact, “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis
of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed…. Unfortunately, the
IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change.”

Hurricane scientist Christopher W. Landsea, formerly of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was an author for the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1995 and the Third Assessment Report in 2001, but he resigned from the Fourth Assessment Report, accusing the IPCC of distorting hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the
IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a January 17, 2005, public letter. “I personally 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.” Landsea is currently with the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center.

The process in which UN IPCC documents are produced is simply not compatible with good science. The UN IPCC’s guidelines stipulate that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the media-hyped Summary for Policymakers.

As Senator Inhofe, the former chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has noted, “The IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle—not a scientific process.” Inhofe explained, “During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.”


Withdrawing in Disgust

Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was part of the UN IPCC assessments. But Reiter resigned in disgust and declared the “consensus” claims a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, threatened legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.



The Guardian detailed the process in a 2014 article. “Government officials and scientists are gathered in Yokohama this week to wrangle over every line of a summary of the report before the final wording is released on Monday—the first update in seven years. Nearly 500 people must sign off on the exact wording of the summary, including the 66 expert authors, 271 officials from 115 countries, and 57 observers.”

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit analyzed the process behind the IPCC Summary for Policymakers and discovered that “the purpose of the three month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for PolicyMakers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match
the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”

Former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. revealed his personal experience dealing with the UN IPCC: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.”

Years before the Climategate scandal broke, Pielke was warning the public, “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”

Any remaining doubts that the IPCC is a political organization were eliminated when former UN IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri admitted the IPCC is an arm of world governments and serves at their “beck and call.” “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do,” Pachauri told the Guardian in 2013. “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call. Pachauri freely told the world that the purpose of the UN IPCC reports is to make the case for “action” on global warming. As he explained, “There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change.”

In 2017, climate policy researcher and author Donna Laframboise issued an analysis finding that U.S. government rules “in no uncertain terms, repudiate the process by which UN climate reports are produced. The US government says political tampering with scientific findings is a violation of scientific integrity. But political revision is central to how IPCC reports
get produced.”

UN Chief’s Climate Religion

In 2015, former UN IPCC Chief Rajendra Pachauri, whose organization shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, literally called global warming his religion. Pachauri, who was forced out of his position at the UN by a sexual harassment scandal, said in his resignation letter, “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” Journalist Donna Laframboise, who has written two books critical of the UN climate panel responded to Pachauri’s admission: “Yes, the IPCC—which we’re told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports—has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling.”


Laframboise, who authored the 2011 book exposing the IPCC titled The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert,” reported: IPCC reports therefore lack scientific integrity. People who rely on IPCC reports are basing their decisions on documents that have no scientific integrity. The IPCC goes back, after the fact, and changes the original scientific report so that it aligns with the politically negotiated summary.

She also noted, “After the summaries are haggled over, the IPCC alters what the scientists wrote. That’s the reason the IPCC routinely releases its summaries before it releases the underlying scientific report. In this 2007 news clipping, the IPCC chairman explains: “we have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.”

Greenpeace co-founder turned climate skeptic Dr. Patrick Moore commented on Laframboise’s report, noting this is the “perfect reason for the US to abandon the UN Paris climate ‘agreement.’”

Insiders Speak Out

An impressive array of former UN IPCC scientists are completely disillusioned with the climate panel and its politically manufactured “scientific” conclusions. They’ve seen how the sausage is made, and they’re willing to testify to the dishonesty of the process.

Indian geologist Arun D. Ahluwalia of Punjab University, a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet, has charged, “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds…. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”

Steven M. Japar, an atmospheric chemist who was part of the UN IPCC’s Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports and has authored eighty-three peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions, and vehicle emissions, explained, “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model–predicted midtroposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”

Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning environmental physical chemist from Japan, is another UN IPCC scientist who has turned his back on the UN climate panel. Kiminori declared that global warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” …

Kenneth P. Green, who was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the IPCC in 2001, has declared, “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

Climatologist John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville was a lead author on the 2001 UN IPCC report. Christy explained how his colleagues were telegraphing the science to support politics. “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol.”

Top United Nations officials apparently know years in advance that each UN climate report will be more alarming—an exercise in making the science fit their political agenda. In 2010, AFP reported that Robert Orr, UN undersecretary general for planning, had declared that the “next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming will be much worse than the last one.”

In 2017, the IPCC, realizing how damaging these slips of the tongue from UN officials could be to public support, attempted to dismiss this Orr’s comments, saying that Orr “was UN Under-Secretary-General, not working with IPCC.”

So according to the IPCC, if Orr was not an official IPCC executive, then his comments had no bearing on its work. But how do they explain the then-head of the IPCC, Pachauri, making very similar comments in 2009, a full four years ahead of the next report? “When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’”

Pachauri told the BBC in 2013, “I hope that [the report] will reassure everyone that human influence is having a major impact on the Earth’s climate.”

It does not stop there. In 2012, a year before the report came out, former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer announced that the next IPCC report “is going to scare the wits out of everyone.” He added, “I’m confident those scientific findings will create new political momentum.”

Australia’s The Age newspaper reported that de Boer believes the scary IPCC report “should provide the impetus needed for the world to finally sign an agreement to tackle global warming.”

In 2014, I became a bit bored with the whole IPCC scare the public and media hype routine. “After years of covering this debate for well over a decade as a reporter, researcher, and U.S. Senate staffer, I find myself completely bored by the UN’s same old ramp up the alarm approach,” I responded to media inquiries. “I have covered this debate on a daily basis,
hourly basis and sometimes minute by minute basis. I am trying to get excited, but alas, even the alarmism and apocalyptic claims fail to excite me. Can’t the UN think of more effective ways to get attention? Can’t the UN try something different?”

Let’s let IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Vincent Gray of New Zealand have the last word. Gray, the author of more than one hundred scientific publications, was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990. And he says, “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”