Close this search box.

Don’t Let Media Whitewash Climategate! Read Chapter excerpt revealing the truth behind scandal 10 years later

The mainstream media has been attempting once again to re-write Climategate on the 10th Anniversary of the scandal.

Chapter excerpt on Climategate: The UN IPCC Exposed from best-selling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Marc Morano

[Note: Also, see: Chapter excerpt Michael Mann’s Hockey Schtick: From best-selling The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change by Marc Morano ]


Climategate: The UN IPCC Exposed

Chapter Excerpt: “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple.” That’s Princeton physicist Robert Austin’s take on the scandal that exposed the very unscientific conduct of UN IPCC scientists.

But what the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Institute revealed was more than just a shocking case of dishonesty in science. It was the fraudulence of the entire man-made climate change narrative. The Climategate emails showed that UN IPCC scientists were holding together the global warming narrative and the supposed scientific “consensus” that supported it by subterfuge and intimidation. The Climategate scandal opened a lot of eyes to the fact that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was more political than scientific.

The Climategate scandal pulled back the curtain on the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists, who were caught artificially propping up the climate change narrative via a partisan campaign to boost only the science and scientists that support their cause and exclude science and scientists that don’t fit. Data manipulation, manipulation of the peer-review process, blacklisting, data destruction, and willful violation of Freedom of Information Act requests were some of the key revelations in the Climategate emails.

CBS News reported on the Climategate scandal in December of 2009:

“Those files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and discussed how to conceal apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law.”

When NBC News reported on “A scandal called ‘Climategate’” in 2009, it was introduced as “a scandal involving some stolen emails.” NBC noted that “the language in the emails suggest these scientists manipulated their findings.”

The thousands of emails, either hacked or more likely leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, revealed the behind the-scenes collusion of the climate change leadership. The leading UN IPCC scientists were caught red-handed artificially manufacturing the “scientific consensus” for the global warming narrative. Their own words betrayed that they were acting like political partisans, not scientists—crafting a predetermined message rather than following the evidence. Climategate exposed the work product of the IPCC as the best science that politics and activism could manufacture. Emails between Climategate scientists showed a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

As Forbes reported on the emails released in both the original 2009 Climategate scandal and a second release in 2011 dubbed “Climategate 2.0,”

“‘I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,’ writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email. ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get—and has to be well hidden,’ Jones writes in another email. ‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data…. ’”

Chris Horner, author of the 2007 Politically Incorrect Guide® to Global Warming, reported on the efforts to delete correspondence by Climategate scientists. “Phil Jones in the United Kingdom asked Mann, now at Penn State, by email to delete records being sought under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, and to get a colleague to do so as well,” Horner explained in 2011.

Jones had emailed, Mike:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN IPCC 4th Assessment]? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment—minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.

“‘Gene’ is Eugene Wahl, who now works for the federal government,” explained Horner. Mann’s terse reply included in pertinent part: “I’ll contact
Gene about this ASAP.”

According to Wahl, Mann did contact him. “For the record, while I received the email from CRU [Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit] as forwarded by Dr. Mann, the forwarded message came without any additional comment from Dr. Mann; there was no request from him to delete emails,” Wahl explained in 2011.

The Telegraph reported that CRU director Jones was “accused of making error of judgment by colleague” Mann for asking their colleagues to “delete
sensitive emails to evade Freedom of Information requests.” Mann tried to distance himself from Jones, “I can’t justify the action, I can only speculate
that he was feeling so under attack that he made some poor decisions frankly and I think that’s clear.” Jones retired in 2016.

A Washington Post editorial on November 25, 2009, summed up the unfolding scandal:

According to one of the stolen e-mails, CRU [Climate Research Unit] Director Phil Jones wrote that he would keep papers questioning the connection between warming and human activity out of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Mr. Jones and Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann write about an academic journal and its editor, with Mr. Mann discussing organizing a boycott of the publication and Mr. Jones saying, “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” 

Other e-mails speak of withholding data from climate-change skeptics…. Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them.

Mann joined Jones in planning to punish a scientific journal that he did not consider faithful to the climate narrative: “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

Climate blogger Tom Nelson dug through and collected a slew of the Climategate emails on his website:

• Email 1819, Nov 2003, warmist Tom Wigley to Mann et al on possible responses to McIntyre and McKitrick’s request for data: “The second is to tell them to go to hell”

• Email 4868, Sept ’05: IPCC reviewer McIntyre asks to see the data underlying a paper; warmists complain this is a “major abuse of his position”

• Email 1897, Dec 2008: After Phil Jones admits deleting material, UEA’s FOI officer David Palmer writes: “Phil, you must be very careful about deleting material, more particularly when you delete it”

• 2000: Warmist Phil Jones goes to “solar variability and climate” conference in Tenerife; finds that “Many in the solar terrestrial physics community seem totally convinced that solar output changes can explain most of the observed changes we are seeing”; laments that THEY are “so set in their ways”

• Email 4657, Oct 2000, It’s a small world after all: Editor of Journal of Climate, Michael Mann, gets Phil Jones to review a paper by Tom Wigley and Ben Santer

• 2004 email: Phil Jones on why he thought the last 20 years was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period: “This is all gut feeling, no science”; warmist Tom Wigley also calls the hockey stick “a very sloppy piece of work”

Climategate exposed the manufactured consensus and gave the lie to the endlessly repeated mantra that all scientists agree on anthropogenic
global warming.

Breaking Ranks Climate skeptics hailed the release of the emails as a victory for science. But even more significant, Climategate ultimately prompted UN scientists to turn on UN scientists, and on the UN IPCC process.

UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita, for example, publicly declared that his colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones, who had both been implicated in Climategate, “should be barred from the IPCC process…. They are not credible anymore.”

Zorita also noted how petty and punitive the global warming science had become: “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication.”

Zorita was making reference to Climategate emails in which IPCC scientists had discussed how to suppress data and scientific studies that did not agree with the UN IPCC line. He noted how scientists who deviated from the UN IPCC’s position were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.” Zorita was a contributing author to the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. He has published more than seventy peer-reviewed scientific studies.

We have already met UN lead author Richard Tol, now a dissenter. In the wake of Climategate he lamented that the IPCC had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.”

Despite the fact that Tol publicly called to “suspend” the IPCC process in 2010, he once again served as lead author for the Fifth Assessment Report. Over subsequent years, Tol grew even more disillusioned with the UN and appeared in my 2016 film Climate Hustle.


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. Policy makers 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


Another scientist suggested disbanding the United Nations climate panel altogether. Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, which was ground zero of the Climategate scandal, suggested that the UN IPCC had “run its course.” He complained about its “tendency to politicize climate science” and suggested that it had “perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production.”

Hulme warned, “It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is  something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”

Pat Michaels, a climate scientist and IPCC reviewer, commented, “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

Yet another UN IPCC reviewer, Vincent Gray, declared in November 2009, “I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.”

Other UN scientists were even more blunt. Will Alexander, professor emeritus at the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, called the UN IPCC
a “worthless carcass” and then–IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri a “disgrace.”

He complained of the IPCC’s “deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives” and “fraudulent science” that “continue[d] to be exposed” and explained, “I was subjected to vilification tactics…. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…. There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!”

Geologist Don Easterbrook, a professor at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”


Now We Can See the Force of Your Argument

Warmists’ tendency to resort to insults in the climate debate suggests that they may not have scientific evidence and rational arguments to back
up their position. On December 4, 2009, at the height of the Climategate scandal, I appeared on BBC TV—which described me as “one of America’s leading climate change skeptics”—to debate Andrew Watson, professor at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, whose emails appear in the Climategate files. Watson, bent on defending his colleagues, was the climate activist who called me an asshole on live television. As CBS News reported, “Professor Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. It didn’t take long before the two got in each other’s face and Watson became increasingly annoyed with Morano’s loud interruptions. He finally lost it by the end when the anchor thanked the participants. ‘What an asshole,’ Watson said.”

His remark prompted an on-air apology to viewers from the BBC for the offensive language. During the live debate, I charged Professor Watson with being in “denial” over the importance of Climategate and noted that “you have to feel sorry for Professor Watson.” I explained that Professor Watson’s “colleague, Mike Hulme at the  University of East Anglia is saying this is authoritarian science, he is suggesting the IPCC should be disbanded based on what Climategate reveals.”

A clearly agitated Watson, whose university was at the epicenter of the Climategate scandal, blurted out, “Will you shut up just a second!?”
right before dropping the A bomb on me. He later apologized to me via email.

I myself was actually mentioned in one of the Climategate scandal emails. On July 23, 2009, AP reporter Seth Borenstein had emailed one of the Climategate scientists, Penn State professor Michael Mann of hockey stick fame, about a “a paper in JGR [Journal of Geophysical Research] today that Marc Morano is hyping wildly.” Mann wrote back to Borenstein, “The aptly named Marc ‘Morano’ has fallen for it!” 
As Breitbart News reported, “Borenstein’s email is hardly a neutral ‘standard step for journalists.’ Borenstein criticizes Marc Morano, a critic of manmade global warming claims, of ‘hyping wildly’ the study that Borenstein was asking for comments on. The email looks as if Borenstein was working
with others involved in Climategate to discredit critics of man-made global warming.”

Associated Press climate reporter Seth Borenstein’s reputation as a foot soldier in the global warming cause was further cemented by the Climategate revelations. 


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.”

Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller presented a video lecture in 2011 on his disgust with the “hide the decline” temperature alterations, which came to light in Climategate, and which we discussed in chapter six. “They are not allowed to do this in science. It isn’t up to our standards,” Muller declared. “As a scientist, I now have a list of scientists whose papers I will not read anymore.”

In November 2009, I was one of the first reporters to publicize the Climategate scandal, after first being alerted to it by a phone call from fellow skeptic Anthony Watts. I devoted my website to the unfolding revelations. The mainstream media’s initial attempts to ignore or downplay Climategate allowed skeptics to report on the reality of the scandal without the filter of the warmist defenders in the media. “My fervent hope is the mainstream media continues to ignore Climategate, as this will ensure the public will continue to receive the most accurate and balanced information about the scandal,” I told Newsweek magazine in December 2009.

The Newsweek profile of me noted, “While on the Hill, Morano was more like a wire service than a spokesman, pumping out scads of e-mails each week, sometimes each day, to reporters covering climate change” adding, “Morano was influential if not [sic] just through sheer relentlessness. With ‘Climategate’—the release last month of thousands of hacked e-mails showing debate about climate change may have been stifled—he is now getting
more attention than ever before.”

Circling the Wagons
When the scandal broke, the global warming establishment—led by the UN, academia, and the media—immediately went into move-along-nothing-to see-here mode. There were several high-profile “investigations” of Climategate that were obviously designed simply to restore credibility to the UN and climate scientists The global warming industry investigated itself and exonerated itself.

The pre-determined goal was to declare that Climategate was much ado about nothing. The investigations were hopelessly compromised—lacking thoroughness and riddled with conflicts of interest. The Hockey Stick Illusion author Andrew Montford analyzed four of the Climategate investigations and found that they were “rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive.”

Clive Crook, writing for the Atlantic, also slammed the Penn State investigation: “The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who came up with ‘the hockey stick’—would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces
that, for ‘lack of credible evidence’, it will not even investigate them…. You think I exaggerate?…In short, the case for the prosecution is never heard. Mann is
asked if the allegations (well, one of them) are true, and says no.”

As Crook explained, “The [Penn State] report…says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired
by his peers—so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false.”

But the coup de grâce was the report’s conclusion that anyone as respected (and as lucrative for Penn State) as Mann couldn’t possibly be guilty. Penn
State was touting Mann’s cash cow status for the university as some sort of guarantee that he could do no wrong.

As the report explained,

“This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…. Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…. Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”

At the Watts Up with That blog, Willis Eschenbach pointed out the fact that the Penn State investigators had tasked Mann, the man under investigation,
with gathering and presenting the evidence against himself. The university simply exonerated Mann by making sure that “none of the important questions are ever answered.”


And the Taxpayers Foot the Bill

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2010 that Michael Mann has racked up “more than $2.4 million” in stimulus money from the U.S. government. “He received another grant worth nearly $1.9 million to investigate the role of ‘environmental temperature on the transmission of vector-borne diseases,’” the paper noted.


Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit pointed out that the UK Royal Society’s Climategate investigation was “tainted” by the fact that the investigators—
including one of Mann’s co-authors—had an obvious stake in declaring there was nothing to see here.

Another one of the Climategate investigations was the Muir Russell investigation, which the UK Register’s Andrew Orlowski called “shameful”—its main goal was to urge a “campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in global warming science.

Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre noted that the Muir Russell report “adopted a unique inquiry process in which they interviewed only one side—CRU [the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University]. As a result, the report is heavily weighted towards CRU apologia.”

An East Anglia University inquiry chaired by Lord Oxburgh was characterized by the Register as “Dracula’s in charge of the blood bank” because of conflicts of interest. As Andrew Orlowski reported, “The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents—and has failed to declare it. Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday. But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.”

Thoroughly Discredited

But despite these whitewashes coming from the global warming establishment, Climategate did have a major effect. We have already seen how it triggered the conversion of numerous scientists—including UN IPCC scientists—from true believers to more skeptical. Climatologist Judith Curry, for example, said in 2014, “Bottom line: Climategate was career changing for me.” She explained, “Climategate shed a public light on the lack of transparency in climate science, which was deemed intolerable by pretty much everyone (except for some people who ‘owned’ climate data sets).”

Curry noted that “in the U.S., it seems that Climategate had a more palpable impact on climate legislation.

Senator James Inhofe stated that Climategate was the death knell of carbon cap and trade legislation.”

Rex Murphy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation summed it up this way: Climategate “pulls back the curtain on a scene of pettiness, turf protection, manipulation, defiance of freedom of information, lost or destroyed data and attempts to blacklist critics or skeptics of the global warming cause.” He continued, “You wouldn’t accept that at a grade 9 science fair.” Murphy added, “Science has gone to bed with advocacy and both have had a very good time.”

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.”

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.


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.


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.”

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 very 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!”
  • 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.”


Related Links:

James Delingpole: Climategate 10 Years On – The Bastards Have Got Away With It!