UN and IPCC  by Roger King  

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. IPCC 2007 Report
3. IPCC 2001 Report
4. IPCC 1995 Report
5. IPCC 1990 Report
6. Other
7. IPCC
8. NIPCC Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change

Introduction

Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded  by John McLean  November 2007   The role of the IPCC is defined in item 2 of its document "Principles Governing IPCC Work", (online at http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf) The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.   Link

Dishonest political tampering with the science on global warming  by OnTheWeb: Christopher Monckton  Monday, December 10, 2007    For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong.   Link

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change   (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC has completed three full assessment reports, guidelines and methodologies, special reports and technical papers. For more information on the IPCC, its activities and publications please see the IPCC homepage.

The IPCC has three working groups

1.  Working Group I: The Science of Climate Change
2. Working Group II: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability
3. Working Group III: Mitigation of climate change and a Task Force on Greenhouse Gas Inventories

Commentary/Climate panel on the hot seat  by H. Sterling Burnett   March 14, 2008   More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

James Hanson: "Climate Target is not Radical Enough   by Ed Pilkington, The Guardian, April 7, 2008.   Commentary by Christopher Monckton  Hansen started the “global warming” scare during the hot Washington summer of 1988, when he presented the temperature projections in graphs A-C below to the US Senate, based on a computer model. The Senate duly panicked, and the IPCC was hastily established that year.   ...  Temperatures have risen since 1998 at a mean rate that is between one-half and one-quarter of that which Hansen had projected only 20 years ago. Ever since Hansen made this extreme projection, he has been attempting – with increasing desperation and diminishing success – to justify it. However, neither his own model nor the other models upon which the IPCC unduly relies predicted what has actually happened in the real climate –  The downtrend that The Guardian somehow failed to mention: Since late 2001, the trend of global surface temperatures has been firmly downward. “Global warming” stopped in 1998; and, though it may resume in future years, the rate of warming is self-evidently less than official forecasts had shown, and is very likely to be harmless.  

Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science   by Dr. Tim Ball  Friday, June 13, 2008    The IPCC mandate was defined so that they only looked at human causes of climate change, but generally the media and the public believe they are looking at scientifically natural climate change in total. Rules guaranteed the message to the media They created the illusion that open, peer reviewed science was being practiced. They guaranteed the pre-eminence of the political message over the science by writing a rule to release the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) before the Science Report.  
 

IPCC does not publish the name of the scientists that work on their reports and will not provide them on request.   Wonder why.  It is they are afraid of something.  Maybe someone could poll those people to their actual beliefs or find that the numbers were propped up.  Beware of any scientific group that will not provide scientists names or how they arrive at their results, let alone publish their raw data.

How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming   by Dr. Tim Ball  Wednesday, April 30, 2008  Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three Reports, signaled the objectives were political and not scientific. He said, “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen  ...  IPCC. Two thirds of the people involved in the IPCC (1900 of 2500) are not climate experts and study what might happen, not will happen. So the entire process was established to achieve the goal of announcing (potential) disasters 

AGW: Short on science, long on religion  by James A. Peden at McQ   July 14, 2008   The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models. 

IPCC 2007 Report

Errors covertly corrected by the I.P.C.C. after publication And Uncorrected Errors by Al Gore  by Lord Monckton of Brenchley March 2007

1. A 10-fold exaggeration in the effect of Melting ice-sheets on sea-level rise  A mathematical error of addition caused a tenfold exaggeration of the contributions of the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets to sea-level rise.  This error was missed by 2100 scientists because the table did not appear at all in the version of the Summary for  Policymakers that the Scientific Assessment Working Group sent to governments for approval. The table was inserted by the IPCC bureaucracy after the scientists had reached their conclusions on the science.

2. A 20-fold exaggeration of the climatic effects of rising CO2 concentrations  The 2,500 scientists of the IPCC make the following alarmist statement, which has been widely and uncritically quoted by journalists worldwide: “The carbon dioxide radiative forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005.” ...  This 20-fold exaggeration of the increase in the radiative forcing effect of atmospheric CO2 has been quietly removed from the revised version of the Summary for Policymakers.

3. Note that the IPCC’s 2007 report has reduced its estimate of the entire anthropogenic contribution to climate change ...  it is legitimate to deduce that about three-quarters of the 0.8C rise in temperature over the past 100 years is attributable to natural causes

Pseudoscientific elements in climate change research by Arthur Rörsch  February 16, 2008  In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is ‘settled’, significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated. 

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate by  Fred Singer with the Heartland Institute in 2008   The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.  

The top end of the U.N.’s new projection is about 30-percent lower than it was in its last report in 2001.   Link

Sea level rise estimates cut in half in last 6 years (UN 2007 IPCC Report)

UN Downgraded Man’s Climate Impact by 25% in last 6 years (UN 2007 IPCC Report)

COMMENTARY/Climate panel on the hot seat   by H. Sterling Burnett   March 14, 2008  The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

Climate Change Forecasters on the Hot Seat  by H. Sterling Burnett at NCPA  February 18, 2008  In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report:

• They found that 127 principles were relevant in assessing the process the IPCC used to project climate change.
• The IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles.
• Twelve additional principles appeared to be violated.
• Another 38 could not be assessed because there was insufficient information.

IPCC 2001 Report

Commentary/Climate panel on the hot seat   by H. Sterling Burnett   March 14, 2008  In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.   Link   Link 2

IPCC 1995 Report

Global Warming: The Other Side of the Story   by Tom DeWeese  (May 19, 2006)  ...  when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the body of the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summery. Specifically, two key paragraphs written by the scientists were deleted. They said:

1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."

2. "No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes."

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate by  Fred Singer with the Heartland Institute in 2008    The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence.   

IPCC 1990 Report

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate by  Fred Singer with the Heartland Institute in 2008    The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming.  

Other

Another Miss for the Modelers  by Chris Horner   July 31, 2008     The IPCC and the models on which it premises its version of reality are wrong on rainfall. They are wrong on GHG concentrations and behavior. Models are wrong on Antarctica, on Andean snowpack, on Bangladesh, on ocean temperatures, and wrong on the Northwest Passage. Roy Spencer’s research appears to have affirmed that models are demonstrably and fatally wrong on the threshold question of climate sensitivity. 

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing’ At UN Conference  by EPW Blog  Tuesday, December 11, 2007    UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants. “There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate,” Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)  “All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time.  If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,” Gray, who wrote the book “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” said. “It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics,”

Greenpeace challenged to prove need for carbon tax    Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition  April 21, 2007  Owen McShane, chair of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition responding to a statement Friday by Bunny McDiarmid, executive director of Greenpeace which called for the immediate introduction of a carbon tax.

Cow ‘Emissions’ More Damaging to Planet Than C02 From Cars (2006 UN Report, Food and Agricultural Organization)

Conflicting Theories of  "Global Warming"  by Geoff Metcalf  March 17, 2008   Researchers have developed 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.  A recent National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) study used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report:

1. The NCPA found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles, or 47 percent relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions.
2. According to the Washington Times, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127, or only 13 percent forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
3. To add insult to injury, the final draft of the IPCC 'work' was co-written with political appointees and required their approval prior to release.

Global Warming Shakedown Begins  by Investor's Business Daily   November 27, 2007   United Nations, which released a green-themed Human Development Report … can claim that floods, droughts and other climate-related disasters "could stall and then reverse human development," robbing millions of food, schools and even shelter — unless, that is, rich nations pony up $86 billion by 2015 to help the poor adapt to global warming.  Oh, and by the way, the U.N. says $40 billion of that will have to come from the U.S. Of course, the U.N. will oversee that money.    

Brainwashing a generation  by Henry Lamb  Monday, November 5, 2007 at the Canadian Free Press (CFP)   The major difference between the current, lingering global warming hysteria, and the other predictions of catastrophe, is the United Nations. The U.N. didn’t fully recognize the value of the environment as a funding source until the 1972 Conference on the Environment held in Stockholm, headed by Maurice Strong. By the time global cooling shifted to global warming, the U.N. had created the United Nations Environment Program, and international treaties on wetlands, and on endangered species. Global warming was an idea that promised unlimited funds.  The 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change became the global institutions for the collection and re-distribution of money. With this money came power, the power to propagandize. Using the IPCC as the perceived “last word” in science, the political arm of the U.N.’s global warming has churned out tons of global warming propaganda, labeled as “official” scientific findings. In truth, the IPCC’s Executive Reports use just enough science to flavor their projections, and, following Stephen Schneider’s advice, “...ignore any doubts” that participating scientists may have.    

Spinning the Climate by Vincent Gray (Dr Vincent Gray has been a member of the expert reviewers’ panel for all of the IPCC assessment reports)  September 27, 2007   The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was jointly set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the United Nations Environmental Programme in 1988. It was set up In order to :

1. Assess available scientific information on climate change: Working Group I
2. Assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change : Working Group II
3. Formulate response strategies: Working Group III
   1. The second and third objectives depend heavily on the first, which will be discussed here.
   2. The three Working Groups are made up of nominees of the two sponsors, but are dominated by Government employees, or recipients of Government finance. As Governments throughout the world have come to adopt policies dependent on the belief that greenhouse gas emissions are causing harmful effects on the climate, all of the Working Group members tend to be supporters of this view. as are the "Lead Authors" of the Reports who are nominated by them.
   3. Drafts of all the main Reports of the IPCC are circulated for comment. Initially this was only to Government Environment Departments, who then consulted with local experts and interested parties before forwarding comments received. Nowadays, almost anyone can comment, provided they tell the right story. There are three drafts of each Report, the third being circulated only to Governments. There is evidence that some of the most extravagant claims only appear in the Final Draft.
4. The "Summary for Policymakers" arises because the Governments that have sponsored the Report wish to authorize it and ensure that it corresponds with their "Climate Change" policies. It is agreed line-by-line by representatives of the Governments. It is drafted mainly by selected scientists from the main Report, but it is sometimes not understood that they are acting on orders, not as independent scientists. The "Summary for Policymakers" is actually a "Summary BY Policymakers" as it is not just advice to other policymakers, it is a summary approved by the policymakers themselves. It is also a genuine consensus of their views, agreed by all of them, and it does not necessarily coincide with the views of any of the scientists who participate in the Report.

IPCC

The Great Unraveling at IBD Editorials 02/05/2010   On Thursday, the U.K.'s Telegraph reported that India was pulling out of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and forming its own agency to study global warming. Why? Because the Indian government feels it can't depend on the IPCC's work.

And why should it? The concerns about the IPCC's accuracy are justified. A day after India's announcement, the Netherlands asked the U.N. to explain why the IPCC had said in its 2007 report that 55% of the country was below sea level when the Dutch themselves have reckoned that only 26% of the nation is that low.

This is the same IPCC that said in the same 2007 report that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 — though there's no scientific study to confirm the claim. It was based on the hunch of one scientist who expressed his opinion to a reporter.

The IPCC withdrew the assertion when it became widely known that it was bogus. But if the panel hadn't been called out, we suspect it would have kept mum.

C02 Global Warming’s IPCC-created Hobglobin  by Dr. Tim Ball   April 6, 2009  The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is responsible for providing the hobgoblin of global warming. They claim CO2 is almost the sole cause of warming while effectively ignoring the sun. Their claim that the sun is of little consequence is unbelievable and only a measure of their deception and lousy science. They only looked at one part of solar influence on weather and climate and didn’t do that accurately. Instead they used it to support their claim the temperature changes are not caused by the sun and therefore must be due to CO2. They only considered irradiance (heat and light) and concluded, incorrectly, it was of little consequence. They assume, because the variation is approximately 0.1% over approximately a 30-year period, it is of little consequence.

The number certainly seems small when expressed as a percentage of 100. However, it is estimated that only a 6% variation is sufficient to explain all known temperature variation in the history of the Earth.  So 0.1% is significant in relation to 6%. To put this in context consider how much the temperature drops between night and day or even for the brief period of a total eclipse. As solar and climate scientist Willie Soon said, “We have known for 80 years that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.”

The IPCC do not include changes in sun/earth relationships collectively called the Milankovitch effect, a major cause of temperature change.

They ignore the high correlation between sunspots and global temperature which has a warmer Earth with many sunspots and colder with fewer. They claimed, legitimately, you must not assume cause and effect. However, they made the illegitimate claim there was no mechanism and the research was not produced in time to meet their deadline for inclusion. Both claims are wrong. A proposed mechanism first appeared in Science in 1991 when Christensen and Lassen published “Length of the Solar Cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with Climate.” Since then several articles appeared elaborating on the mechanism, most before the IPCC deadline. Why did they ignore it? Likely because it showed the sun explained temperature changes.

IPCC Temperature Projections Challenged as 3-Fold Exaggeration  at the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition   January 3, 2008   In a move that could mark a significant turning point in the history of the greenhouse warming debate, Viscount Christopher Monckton and Dr David Evans produced a document with a mathematical proof that the IPCC have overestimated the effect of greenhouse forcings by as much as threefold.  ...   There are thousands of scientific papers related to climate change and greenhouse gases, almost all of which assume that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a significant effect on temperature. The Monckton and Evans paper attacks the most central point underlying all the others. They used the Stefan–Boltzmann equation, and another method, to show that the IPCC is exaggerating the effect of CO2 on global temperatures.

Climate Change Forecasters on the Hot Seat   by H. Sterling Burnett   February 18, 2008   In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in order to study and better understand this potential threat.   The IPCC’s mission was to provide a “comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socio-economic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.  ...  it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.

Inadequacies and criticisms of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by Professor Bob Carter, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia  August 2006

1. In fact, the IPCC uses a concept of peer review that differs greatly from the commonly understood meaning of the term. The problem has been well summarized by von Storch (2005), who writes:  "The IPCC has failed to ensure that the assessment reports, which shall review the existing published knowledge and knowledge claims, should have been prepared by scientists not significantly involved in the research themselves.  Instead, the IPCC has chosen to invite scientists who dominate the debate about the considered issues to participate in the assessment. This was already in the Second Assessment Report a contested problem, and the IPCC would have done better in inviting other, considerably more independent scientists for this task.  Instead, the IPCC has asked scientists like Professor Mann to review his own work. This does not represent an "independent" review." 
2. Other scientists who have participated in IPCC review procedures have complained that it is corrupted by:  a failure to incorporate valid critical comments made by some expert reviewers;  chaotic editorial techniques, which have included the preparation and release of a new draft report whilst its first draft was still being reviewed;  in the final stage of review of a Summary for Policymakers, incorporating changes desired by government bureaucrats without recourse to expert scientific assessment; and an inadequate and dismissive attitude towards informed criticism.
3. Some of the key statistics upon which the IPCC relies for its arguments do not have their original data or methods of calculation disclosed.

The IPCC: As good as it gets   by Professor Martin Parry Co-chair, IPCC Working Group II   November 13, 2007   The IPCC is not, as some believe, a group of scientists, but a panel set up by the United Nations comprising representatives from about 140 governments to consider what we currently know about climate change.  The panel decides whether an assessment is needed, and then engages scientists to conduct it.  Since its establishment in 1987, there have been four such major assessments, published roughly every five years (1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007), sprinkled with occasional special reports on specific topics.    Link

The IPCC goes looking for bad news by Rob Lyons April 23, 2007   Aynsley Kellow, the head of the School of Government at the University of Tasmania who was recently involved in contributing to the latest IPCC report. … There seems to be a contradiction in the IPCC’s thinking. It believes developing countries will experience potentially enormous growth rates over the next 100 years - yet it treats these countries as being just as vulnerable to droughts, floods and so on as if they were trying to tackle the symptoms of climate change in their present poverty-stricken condition. Either the IPCC has overestimated the growth, in which case climate change is likely to be less severe – or it has got the growth rates right (and certainly a 30-fold increase in output in the Third World would be welcome) and these countries will therefore be more likely to have the resources to cope with climatic change.  Even if the growth rates are overstated, the countries worst-affected, according to this latest report, will still be in a very different position from today. As the policy analyst Indur Goklany notes in a wide-ranging critique of the IPCC’s April report, not only will these countries be richer than today; they will also benefit from the cheapening of current technologies and the creation of new ones.

Bitten by the IPCC  by Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post  March 23, 2007

1. Prof. Reiter heads the Insects and Infectious Disease Unit at the Pasteur Institute … the U.S. State Department in 2001, upon the recommendation of its own health authorities, nominated Prof. Reiter to be a lead author of the IPCC's next health chapter.  However, the IPCC choose two other scientists who at the time of their selection, neither was distinguished by having published peer-reviewed articles dealing with mosquito-born disease.
2. "I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC," states Prof. Reiter, whose history in his research field spans three decades and five continents, and who is well familiar with the scope of work occurring in the mosquito-borne research community.
3. In one of the IPCC's most egregious errors, in its Second Assessment Report chapter on human population health, it created the scare -- repeated by scientists with a popular following such as David Suzuki -- that global warming could lead to 80 million additional cases of malaria per year worldwide.
4. The IPCC claimed that malarial mosquitoes cannot ordinarily survive temperatures below 16C to 18C, not realizing that many tropical species do and that many temperate species survive temperatures of --25C. Likewise, IPCC scientists didn't know at what altitudes mosquitoes can be found.
5. Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.  "The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.
6. How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"

What is Wrong with the IPCC? by Hans Labohm November 2007  In the international discussion about climate change, which is now going on for almost twenty years, the IPCC has played a questionable role. From its inception, is has almost exclusively focused on the AGW hypothesis, while systematically ignoring alternative hypotheses.  Some main points of criticism of the IPCC include:

1. The hypothesis that an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will lead to a rise in temperature has not been proven and is even at odds with the observations.
2. Satellite-based temperature measurements show that the earth has warmed a few tenths of a degree Celsius between 1979 and 1998. It is not likely that this is caused by mankind.
3. There is still a lack of scientific understanding, required to model all assumed radiative forcings. The most important one, for which there are not sufficient quantitative data to date, is the variable impact of clouds.
4. Climate models, which are being used to achieve a better understanding of the climate system, are not suited to serve as basis for predictions. This is, inter alia, related to the stochastic nature of climate.
5. The global climate is very much determined by extra-terrestrial phenomena, of which the fluctuation of sun activity is the most important.
6. Should there still be global warming in the future, for which there are only model based indications, then mankind will not be able to do something about it. Moreover, also according the IPCC, a modest additional warming (e.g., of 2 degrees Celsius) will on balance be beneficial for mankind.
7. The IPCC has ignored the climate projections of astrophysicists, which suggest global cooling.
8. The advent of climate alarmism, fuelled by statements of many prominent politicians and the media, has no scientific justification. Many catastrophic consequences of climate change, such as floods and extreme weather events, have been predicted, which are not based on scientific knowledge. Especially the European governments have opted for a climate policy which is completely unrealistic and results in a massive waste of scarce resources. Finally, one should not discount the possibility that the average global temperature will fall considerably in the near future. This might have harmful implications, as opposed to a modest rise of temperatures, which on balance will have positive effects.

No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance  by John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama 11/13/07  Christy is one of the lead IPCC authors. 

1. The political process begins with the selection of the Lead Authors because they are nominated by their own governments.
2. Dr. Christy remembers hearing a conversation with 3 other authors of IPCC report that basically said "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."
3. The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know"  The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know"
4. To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has lead to the temptation to be over-confident.  Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period.  However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking.  You see, every modeler knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modeling community - they know what's coming).  In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.   The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time.
5. Mother Nature is incredibly complex, and to think we mortals are so clever and so perceptive that we can create computer code that accurately reproduces the millions of processes that determine climate is hubris (think of predicting the complexities of clouds).
6. The global warming theory is the advance guard of a political movement that would subject the governance of the world's economy to the tender mercies of the United Nations. It would impose Marxism on the entire globe, destroying national sovereignty and wreck the world's economy.

2,500 scientists say they subscribe to the government concept of global warming.

Is 'global warming' hot air?   by Geoff Metcalf  May 07, 2000  However, that is not really true. You hear about 2,500 scientists who worked on this report for the United Nations. First of all, the number is less than 2,000 and secondly, of these, perhaps 100 are qualified to say something about the climate -- and they have never been polled. We don't know whether they agree with the main conclusion or not. I would say a handful does agree with the main conclusions of the U.N. report, but, many of them do not.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax   by Tom Harris: John McLean   December 14, 2007  The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total.  A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter.  In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.  Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

 IPCC makes no predictions - In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.   Link

Even if  the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past.   Link

IPCC wants no decent - Kevin Hennessy, a lead scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said yesterday that media attention on “the view of a handful of climate change sceptics” amplifies their opinions and “implies that there is little agreement about the basic facts of global warming”.  Hennessy is also with the marine and atmospheric division of Australian government research body, CSIRO.  Speaking in a session about climate change reporting, he said editors and journalists have a duty to ensure that facts are presented in context. Balanced reporting, he said, “perpetuates the public’s perception that scientists are in disarray, which is misleading in the case of climate change”.  Climate reporting “too balanced” say scientists by Daniela Hirschfeld at SciDev.Net Thursday, 19 April 2007

“Many of the so-called ‘hundreds’ of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as ‘expert reviewers’ are in fact climate skeptics,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., notes. “Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC ‘expert reviewers’ but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.”

The United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

Dr. Vincent Grey – ”The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC.

Dr. Vincent Grey – ”The other deception of the IPCC Sea Level Chapter is in statistics. The sea level averages are so inaccurate that they have to supply only one standard deviation as a measure of inaccuracy, instead of the otherwise universal use of two standard deviations. One standard deviation gives only a one in three chance that the measurement lies outside the limits. Two standard deviations puts it up to one in twenty. If you use the proper figures you find that the accuracy sometimes permits a less than one in twenty chance of a sea level fall. That must never be allowed This whole melancholy story is told in an article in "Science" 2006 Volume 312, pages 734 to 736, It seems that the Greenpeace organization is now occupying the role of the late Trofim Lysenko in their ability to reverse the findings of scientific research .

IPCC has a policy requiring them to make all expert and government review comments available under the following terms:  All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five years. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf     Cunning IPCC Bureaucrats by Steve McIntyre  May 21st, 2007   Link

On 2 February 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published a summary of a report due to come out in three months’ time (1). Events surrounding it show how far both the professional drafting and media interpretation of science have become infused with today’s anti-humanist politics. Politically spun and politically interpreted, science is first made incontrovertible and put on a pedestal; turned, in a word, into scientism. Then, science is used to close down political debate. Finally, it is said to confirm the folly, hubris, selfishness and general dirtiness of mankind. Whatever our pretensions, we are now supposed to be pretty loathsome compared with the grandeur of the polar ice caps that now face ruin at our hands. And, in the same spirit, what mankind could really be doing with technology becomes trivialized.  A man-made morality tale by Woudhuysen and Kaplinsky 02/05/2007    Link

An IPCC reviewer does not assess the IPCC’s comprehensive findings. He might only review one small part of one study that later becomes one small input to the published IPCC report. Far from endorsing the IPCC reports, some reviewers, offended at what they considered a sham review process, have demanded that the IPCC remove their names from the list of reviewers. One even threatened legal action when the IPCC refused.  Link

'Scientific consensus' not represented in the IPCC documents: scientist  The Hill Times, August 13th, 2007 LETTERS by Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar Unionville, Ont.     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 (The Hill Times, May 28, 2007). I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-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

In our audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report, we found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. A list of the 72 violations of forecasting principles by the IPCC forecasting procedures is provided on the Public Policy Special Interest Group Page at forecastingprinciples.com. The many violations provide further evidence that the IPCC authors were unaware of evidence-based principles for forecasting. If they were aware of them, it would have been incumbent on them to present evidence to justify their departures from best forecasting practice. They did not do so. We conclude that because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific.  Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts*  by Kesten C. Green, Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University  July 10, 2007

DDT And Global Swarming by Investor’s Business Daily | Posted Monday, July 23, 2007 4:30 PM PT  At the U.N.'s global warming summit November 2006 in Nairobi, the Associated Press cited Kenya as an example of how "a warmer world tends to be a sicker world." The article said warming was disrupting Kenya's climate and that "malaria epidemics have occurred in highland areas where cooler weather historically has kept down populations of the disease-bearing mosquitoes."  However, in 1990, in fact, Kenya joined the worldwide hysteria against DDT and outlawed the insecticide's use. That ban, not global warming, has spawned the resurgence of malaria in Kenya's cooler regions.

The third, released in 2001, contained University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann's famous "hockey-stick" graph purporting to show an abrupt man-made rise in global temperatures.  Mann failed to include in his calculations the Medieval Warming Period (1100-1250) when it was warmer than now and SUVs didn't exist, or the Little Ice Age of the 16th century. His flawed results were exposed when two Canadian researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, attempted to replicate his study.    Link

The Second Assessment Report was adopted by a fairly balanced group of participating scientists in December 1995. Then the lead author of the report, B.D. Santor, acting with the approval of IPCC pooh-bahs, changed the report significantly to enhance the emphasis on imminent doom, without consulting the scientists on the panel.  Dr. Fredrick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, said: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report. Nearly all the changes worked to remove skepticism with which many scientists regard global warming changes."    Link

NRSP cautions against relying on February 2 UN climate report  IPCC documents have a history of bias and misrepresentation of actual science findings By Tom Harris, & Dr. Tim Ball Natural Resources Stewardship Project Friday, February 2, 2007    Besides questioning the legitimacy of releasing the Summary months before the release of the report it is supposedly written to summarize, attention should also be focused on situations in which lead authors of the Fourth Assessment Report are using their own work, reviewed by scientists with whom they work closely, as the primary support for conclusions of specific IPCC report chapters. The US National Academy of Sciences Wegman Report (2006) highlighted how this lack of independent review resulted in serious problems with the last WG1 Summary (2001).  Finally, it should also be recognized that the fact that many scientists were involved in reviewing the Fourth Assessment does not necessarily mean that these scientists agree with the report. For example, NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar was an official reviewer of parts of the document that related to his specialty (extreme weather) and has revealed that the IPCC ignored his comments. NRSP Science Advisory Committee member, Dr. Vincent Gray, also an official reviewer of IPCC reports, speaks about his experience, "They sometimes take notice of your comments. They don't take much notice of mine because most of the time I don't agree with what they are saying.... It is not like the scientific press where you are supposed to answer objections; they don't bother to answer objections; they go their own way."

Predictions of Climate - Posted by Oliver Morton on behalf of Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR (Climate Feedback (The Climate Change Blog) In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.  Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

UN Scientist calls for abolition of IPCC  Dr. Vincent Gray has been a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception  Link

1. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.
2. I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.  Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely. Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound.
3. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.

Why the IPCC Should be Disbanded by John McLean November 2007  The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.  Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete evidence of a significant human influence on climate. It's time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten reasons for doing so.

1. The IPCC charter emphasizes a human influence on climate, not climate in general The role of the IPCC is defined in item 2 of its document "Principles Governing IPCC Work", (online at http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf) The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. [my emphasis added]
2. Its participants are not impartial towards a possible human influence on climate  For this extract we can see that governments can appoint participants to the IPCC but also that those who already work with the IPCC can invite experts to join various working groups and task forces.
3. The IPCC promotes a self-sustaining hypothesis of man-made warming Over time the IPCC reports have progressively expressed more certainty that humans have  significantly influenced climate. A key plank for this increased certainty is the number of scientific papers that are claimed to support this contention. This is nothing more than a self-sustaining hypothesis promulgated by the IPCC.  Here's how it works. When an IPCC report expresses confidence in a human influence on climate governments direct research funding into projects that will investigate aspects of this claim. The research produces scientific papers that support the argument. Like-minded experts, probably involved in similar research, review those papers on behalf of journals that subsequently publish the papers. The dominance of papers on those themes enables the IPCC to say that the number of papers supporting the particular line of argument is strong evidence for the claim.
4. The IPCC misuses the concept of a consensus to provide misleading and false impressions.  It is a fundamental principle of science that support for a hypothesis means nothing because everything depends on whether the hypothesis can be proved wrong. Settling an unresolved scientific matter is normally done by trying to break various hypotheses and continuing until one is found that cannot be broken, at which point the hypothesis is provisionally accepted.
5. Many IPCC report authors have vested interests  With the skewed state of climate science many of these experts will have undertaken research and written peer-reviewed papers with funding which is biased towards to the claims of the IPCC.  This research is clearly biased and the findings are likely to reinforce the IPCC's claims of consensus, moreover this work has probably enhanced the experts' reputations and enhanced their credibility for future research projects. There is no way that these authors can be regarded as impartial when they have so much to gain from the IPCC's reports.
6. The IPCC report authors are often also reviewers, despite the potential conflict of interest.
7. IPPC gives a misleading impression of the extent of review and support for its claims Over the years the IPCC has shown a clear habit of making statements that are ambiguous or misleading and making no effort to clarify them.
8. IPCC advances a very weak argument for a significant human influence on climate The IPCC bases its claim about the human impact on climate on an increase in temperature, a supposed correlation with increase in carbon dioxide concentration, the distribution of warming and on a claimed need to include a "human" factor in climate models in order that the models produce output which closely matches reality.  Not one of these points stands up to close scrutiny.
9. Its primary conclusion was probably pre-determined Ethics and professionalism  How an organisation deals with potential conflicts of interest, its respect for the abilities of its workers, its co-operation with those workers and with external complaints says a lot about the ethics and professionalism of the organisation.

Fallacies about Global Warming   by John McLean  (a Climate researcher a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister)  September 07, 2007   Link

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals.  There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming. 
2. The IPCC reports are based on historical temperature data and trends, and the attribution of warming to human activities relies very heavily on climate modeling. The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis.
3. Governments appoint experts to work with the IPCC but once appointed those experts can directly invite other experts to join them. This practice obviously can, and does, lead to a situation where the IPCC is heavily biased towards the philosophies and ideologies of certain governments or science groups.
4. The IPCC implies that its reports are thoroughly reviewed by thousands of experts. Any impression that thousands of scientists review every word of the reports can be shown to be untrue by an examination of the review comments for the report by IPCC Working Group I. (This report is crucial, because it discusses historical observations, attributes a likely cause of change and attempts to predict global and regional changes. The reports by working groups 2 and 3 draw heavily on the findings of this WG I report.)  The analysis of the WG I report for the 4AR revealed that:
   1. A total of just 308 reviewers (including reviewers acting on behalf of governments) examined the 11 chapters of the WGI I report
   2. An average of 67 reviewers examined each chapter of this report with no chapter being examined by more than 100 reviewers and one by as few as 34.
   3. 69% of reviewers commented on less than 3 chapters of the 11-chapter report. (46% of reviewers commented on just one chapter and 23% on two chapters, thus accounting for more than two-thirds of all reviewers.)
   4. Just 5 reviewers examined all 11 chapters and two of these were recorded as "Govt of (country)", which may represent a team of reviewers rather than individuals
   5. Every chapter had review comments from a subset of the designated authors for the chapter, which suggests that the authoring process may not have been diligent and inclusive

Errors covertly corrected by the I.P.C.C. after publication and Uncorrected Errors by Al Gore by Lord Monckton of Brenchley March 2007 

1. A 10-fold exaggeration in the effect of melting ice-sheets on sea-level rise.   The UN has now quietly corrected Table SPM-0, and has relabelled it Table SPM-1
2. A 20-fold exaggeration of the climatic effects of rising CO2 concentrations

At a glance: IPCC report   BBC News - February 2, 2007  IPCC 4th Report  February 2, 2007  Summary of IPCC findings.   (It should be noted even these figures are much lower than the “Inconvenient Truth” claims)

1. Global climate change is “very likely” to have been human-induced, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded.  Key Findings
   1. It is 90-95% likely that human activities are causing global warming
   2. Probable temperature rise by the end of the century will be between 1.8C and 4C (3.2-7.2F)
   3. Possible temperature rise by the end of the century ranges between 1.1C and 6.4C (2-11.5F)
   4. Sea levels are likely to rise by 28-43cm
   5. Arctic summer sea ice is likely to disappear in second half of century
   6. It is very likely that parts of the world will see an increase in the number of heat waves
   7. Climate change is likely to lead to increased intensity of tropical storms

New U.N. greenhouse gas report should be viewed with skepticism  at the National Resources Stewardship Project  May 3, 2007  The report ignores recent findings that carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of most concern in most schemes to ‘stop climate change', cannot be a primary cause of the past century's modest warming because atmospheric levels of this gas have not risen gradually as suggested by the Antarctic ice core records. According to recent studies, including a thoroughly peer-reviewed paper recently published in Energy and Environment, the CO2 records used by the IPCC are highly questionable at best and more likely based on a fraudulent selection of the available data. More accurate and widely distributed chemical measurements show that CO2 levels have been as high as, if not higher than, current levels at various times in the past 200 year.

NIPCC Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate by Fred Singer with the Heartland Institute in 2008     The initial organization took place at a meeting in Milan in 2003   ....  NIPCC is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.  Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the IPCC ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.