The Climate documentation that the IPCC does not like
Erik Bye
May 27, 2025
NIPCC
During the last five to seven years there have been a lot of international climate reports that IPCC obviously do not like. This means that they never really react upon their presence. These are reports representing scientific knowledge and documentation in strong contrast to the messages from IPCC. The organisation The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was established at The Heartland Institute, as a counterbalance to IPCC.
https://climatechangereconsidered.org
The main reason to establish this Panel was that IPCC almost completely excluded critical articles in their evaluation of climate change. This alone is more than sufficient to establish an opposing voice.
GWPF - Reports of the year 2021, 2022, 2023
These Reports are written by professor (em) Ole Humlum, Geological History, Norway. They give a summary of the «State of the climate for each year. 2019
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/State-of-the-climate2019.pdf
2020
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/05/State-of-the-Climate2020.pdf
2021
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2022/04/Humlum-StateClimate-2021.pdf
2022
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2023/04/State-Climate2022.pdf
2023 https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2024/04/Humlum-StateClimate-2023.pdf
These reports give an excellent summary of the climate change for each year. Much of the observations for the summaries are selected from the blog of Humlum, Climate4you.com. These are the chapters of the reports:
Air temperatures
Atmospheric greenhouse gases
Ocean temperatures
Ocean oscillations
Sea-level
Snow and ice
Storms and wind
Written references
Link to data sources
The most challenging topics are the temperature increase and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Temperature increase
In the Report of 2023 it is written (pp. 11) about the administrative Climate Change. This is due to the homogenisation of the observed temperatures.
The temperature values are consequently reduced for the lower values and increased for the higher values. This Homogenisation is introduced many years after the observation and registration. This gives an artificial temperature increase, as shown in the Figure of the GISS data, shown at the climate4you.com:
Exchange of CO2
Furthermore, on page 21, it is written that the exchange of CO2 takes place with a complete replacement within 3.6 years. This implies that all the CO2 is exchanged, with a corresponding emission of the natural as well as the anthropogenic part. The natural part dominates in the atmosphere, 8595%, and this ratio is reflected in the emission. This is in Sharp contrast to the CO2 Coalition who claims that the emission in modern times is dominated by anthropogenic CO2.
46 Scientists leaving cooperation with IPCC
In this report a total of 46 of the world's top climate scientist have stopped cooperation with IPCC:
https://principia-scientific.com/46-climate-change-denying-statementsmade-by-former-ipcc-scientists/
In the article various scientists describe their evaluation of the situation, commenting on their decision.
One natural question might be: How did they at all cooperate? Quite obviously their basic scientific conclusions must have been contradictory!
This event is not commented on by IPCC at all.
The Nobel Fraud
Roy Clark has shown a scientific scandal by the award of The Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021. Professor Syokuro Matabe was awarded the Nobel Prize on false arguments. He was awarded the prize for his climate models, but these models are wrong. The models lay too high emphasis on the CO2 in the models, giving erroneous results on climate change. Ths models have been used in all the six main reports of IPCC, i.e. AR1-AR6. This is documented in the scientific article:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Clark-2024Nobel-Prize-Errors.pdf
In addition Clark has described the seven errors in the model in an easy-toread Article:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-majorerrors-in-climate-models/
Neither the IPCC nor The Swedish Academy of Sciences has sent any international messages on this story. None of the alarmist climate researchers have given any response to this Fraud.
I have contacted the EU Commission and The Swedish Academy. The Academy did not answer at all., while the Commission was confident in the way they organized their climate work.
It might be the big question: What kind of opposing Climate Change information will bring the IPCC organisation to admit their failures?