My favorite comment so far about the US pulling out of the IPCC and UNFCCC:
“I am unsure how the IPCC can continue without the US.” [Benjamin Horton, dean of the school of energy and environment at City University of Hong Kong]
The IPCC has caused immeasurable and irreparable… pic.twitter.com/0iR6ltvBX2
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) January 8, 2026
UN IPCC Lead Author Professor Benjamin Horton is a Director of the Earth Observatory of Singapore at Nanyang Technological University (NTU). – “Professor Horton was an author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report and is a Review Editor for the new 6th Assessment Report. Professor Horton’s research was cited by President Obama in his 2015 State of the Union Address at the United States Capitol on January 20th 2015.” Source.
#
Climate Depot’s background info on UN IPCC:
UN IPCC is ‘a purely political body posing as a scientific institution’ – Book excerpt – The following is an excerpt from the new 2018 best-selling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.
Prof. John Brignell: “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.”
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 history…. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
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.
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.
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.”
