Source - email
Scam and Scandals of IPCC Part I: Scandals 1
- 15
Erik Bye
September 3, 2025
Here is a summary of the Scams and Scandals of IPCC since 1992, when the first main climate report was released, AR1 or FAR. This presentation is divided into three parts to make it easier to comprehend these Scandals.
Scandal 1: The CO2-hypothesis does not have any scientific documentation
Without documentation, no hypothesis!
Tap the English flag for a translation:
https://fakta360.no/2024/07/1-hvorfor-er-du-overbevist-om-at-co2hypotesen-er-feil/
Scandal 2: IPCC calculates scenarios and not predictions
The climate can not be modelled, according to IPCC (AR3):
«The Climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and can not be used for prediction of specific climate situations».
«IPCC - TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, G.2 Climate Processes and Modelling, Page 78.»
Thus, the calculations of the IPCC are scenarios:
https://bedfordconsulting.com/scenario-planning-vs-forecasting-whatsthe-difference/
The climate can not be predicted. And nobody can describe the future of climate.
Scandal 3: Expert judgements are like a hands up decision
The Expert agrees about the correct temperature!
https://www.projectmanagement.com/wikis/344587/expert-judgment#_
https://www.wrike.com/project-management-guide/faq/what-is-expertjudgment-in-project-management/
Thus, the majority of the scientists determine the temperature.
Scandal 4: 97% of the climate researchers agree with IPCC
John Cook et al. (2013) manipulated the data treatment in an official poll. Thus, 0.3% of IPCC believers turned to 97%!
This is one of the worst Frauds and an obvious offence of science ethics in the climate question.
Scandal 5: The hockey stick of Michael Mann
The Hockey stick of Michael Mann is probably the worst of the fraudulent actions of the IPCC's narrative. Even random numbers gave the hockeystick profile.
Then McIntyre and McKitrick found that Michael Mann had used the same calibration data twice in the model. When one of the data sets was removed, the hockey stick profile disappeared:
https://climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2005/09/ mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf
Scandal 6: The temperature change before the CO2-level
This was shown by Humlum, Stordahl, and Solheim in 2013:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0921818112001658
But the alarmists do not care about this evidence. This is a typical arrogant behaviour of the IPCC-believers.
Scandal 7: The Climate measures are political issues
The first climate measure, 2ËšC, was suggested by the politicians during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. The decision had no scientific documentation. After the Paris meeting (2016) the measure was lowered to 1.5ËšC, with a similar lack of scientific justifications. These are political issues, just taken out of the air.
We should not allow the temperature to go over this measure, to avoid dramatic changes of the climate. However, the climate can not be predicted, 3
hence nobody knows anything at all about the future. These is examples of the invalid scaring, discussed by Professor William Happer in this video:
https://www.freedom-research.org/p/exclusive-interview-with-profwilliam Scandal 8: Arrhenius is falsified
This climate adventure is built upon the theory of Arrhenius. This implies that CO2 in the atmosphere causes an increase in the global temperature. The Climate sensitivity (ECS) indicates the temperature when the CO2 content doubles. According to the first AR reports from IPCC, the temperature increase might be 4-6ËšC in 2100.
However, this Arrhenius theory was falsified already in 2009:
https://usercontent.one/wp/fakta360.no/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ efeito-estufa-fraude.pdf?media=1716408456
But, as a kind of tradition, the IPCC and its alarmistic climate researchers refuse to accept well-documented scientific evidence.
As a result of this unscientific behaviour, there is an archive with documents that is overlooked by the IPCC system, which is commented on in this article:
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4353:norway-theclimate-documentation-the-ipcc-will-notlike&catid=216&highlight=WyJhbWVyaWthIiwia2VyaWsiLCJlcmlrIiwiYW 1lcmlrYW5pc2NoZSIsImFtZXJpa2FuaXNjaGVuIiwiamFuLWVyaWsiLCJie WUiLCJieWVzIiwiZXJpayBieWUiXQ==
Where is the professional pride?
Scandal 9: The climate sensitivity may not exist
The climate sensitivity (ECS) indicates how much the global temperature will increase when the CO2 level doubles. In connection with the release of the first main AR reports from IPCC, the sensitivity was calculated to 46ËšC. The continued calculations by IPCC ended with 3ËšC in AR6.
Nobody has observed the sensitivity, and nobody has found a final value for the variable. Two comprehensive descriptions of the values are given by Scafetta (2017) and Garvais (2021):
https://www.iieta.org/sites/default/files/Journals/IJHT/35.Sp01_03.pdf
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Gervais-2021Climate-Sensitivity-Carbon-Footprints.pdf
Here, it is given values for sensitivity close to 0ËšC. If the sensitivity should end up with a value of 0ËšC, the question is: Does the climate sensitivity exist?
Anyhow, it is a challenge to verify the existence of a variable = 0ËšC.
Somebody has claimed that the sensitivity has been suggested by the alarmists to impose difficulties.
Where is the professional pride?
Scandal 10: The Nobel Fraud
In 2021, Syukuro Manabe was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his Climate Models. Those models have been used in all the main reports from IPCC, AR1 - AR6. But now it is revealed that the Nobel Prize was awarded on a totally wrong basis. These models give too much effects to the CO2
data in the models. This was revealed by Roy Clark in 2024 and is described in several articles:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-majorerrors-in-climate-models/
Tap the American flag to obtain the translation:
https://fakta360.no/2024/09/klimadepartementet-har-svart-pa-thenobel-fraud/
So far, there has been no reaction from the scientific society, from IPCC, from the UN or from any alarmistic climate researcher. How is this silence to be interpreted?
Scandal 11: Natural geo-engineering
Geoengineering is one method to reduce the Imaginary global warming. This is done by spreading a fine-particulate aerosol in the atmosphere far out in the Universe. These particles will stop the radiation from the Sun by absorption.
This idea has been confronted by considerable discussions, first of all due to a resistance to the introduction of an aerosol which might impose health effects to the public. Thus, the idea has so far ended as a spectacular idea. First of all, due to the search for a harmless aerosol.
Then an interesting observation was reported: increased global warming, due to an unprecedented increase in the incoming solar radiation. During the last years, the atmosphere has become cleaner, due to the reduction of the emission of sulphur particles from the world’s shipping:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/06/04/almost-all-recent-globalwarming-caused-by-green-air-policies-shock-revelation-from-nasa/
Tap the American flag to have the translation:
https://fakta360.no/2024/06/det-gronne-skiftet-og-feilslattgeoengineering-star-bak-global-oppvarming-i-folge-nasa/
Thus, parts of the global warming might be due to the improved quality of the environment. This might be a dilemma for the alarmists. A choice between pest and cholera! For the rest of the world, a microscopic temperature increase, due to a cleaner atmosphere and environment, is appreciated. A man-made temperature increase in this context is welcomed.
Scandal 12: Many members of The UN can emit more CO2
Many countries, being members of the UN, are allowed to increase their CO2 emissions until 2030. This is part of the Paris Agreement; they need more energy. This is carried out in China by the development of coal-power plants at a high speed. This seems to have been forgotten by other member states. They do not understand that the CO2 level in the atmosphere does not decrease. These countries are worried due to the small effects of their reduction work. At least, they struggle to obtain their reduction in the framework of The Green Deal.
As an example, China will increase its emissions by ca. 1.2 GT!
One reason for the memory loss might be that this allowance to increase emissions is never talked about.
The emissions of the UN members are described in detail. But the increased allowance is not mentioned:
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-expected-to-risesignificantly-by-2030-15477
https://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/comparing-countriesemissions-targets
Scandal 13: El Niño does not have any variable effect upon the temperature
El Niño and La Niña (ENSO) are weather systems in the Pacific. It changes from the warm El Niño phase to the cold La Niña phase, through the upheaval of large amounts of seawater. The two phases follow each other, an the temperature may easily be seen in the temperature diagram presented by Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH):
If we disregard the normal, linear temperature increase of 0.015 ËšC pr. year, the temperature is back to normal, after the two phases.
This indicates that the ENSO system does not have any systematic and lasting effects upon the temperature or the climate.
The alarmistic climate researchers have the opposite opinion. They erroneously emphasize the increased temperature during the El Niño as a definitive sign of increased global warming.
In the period 1880 - 1940, we can easily see a temperature pattern, with both the ENSO pattern and without any temperature increase:
Scandal 14: The global Temperature does not exist
The temperature is an intensive variable. That means that it is not dependent upon the amount of the specimen to be measured. And it can not be related to other temperature measurements. This means that the middle temperature of two various positions does not represent any physical meaning. They just represent themselves and the way they are measured. Thus, the term global temperature is physically impossible.
It must be obvious that having one temperature representing the South
Pole, the Sahara, the top of Mount Everest, and the Coast along the Mediterranean Sea is impossible.
The thesis is discussed in the following papers:
https://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/ support_for_call_for_review_10Oct07.html
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/ globtemp.jnet.pdf
In addition, the topic was discussed at a television debate in Norway in 2015, with Professor Ivar Giæver. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. (The language is Norwegian.)
https://www.youtube.com/live/JxBbpXqkW6I
Scandal 15: The electrification of the Norwegian Continental Shelf oil and gas platforms is no climate measure.
Electrification of the shelf makes it possible to run the oil platforms by electricity, either from the hydro land-based or from the wind-based energy. Then, flaring of waste gas is avoided, and the reduced emission of CO2 from the petroleum energy production is obtained. As such, this was presented as an effective climate measure. However, this is completely misunderstood. While the «reduced» gas was exported to a neighbour, which used it for energy production, and had to incorporate the corresponding CO2 emission in their CO2 budget. Instead of a Norwegian emission, this was transformed into an emission from «our neighbour».
And this is impossible to explain to the Norwegian authorities and the green activists. They believe that this is an effective climate measure, which it definitely is not.
And in a way, the situation is Even Worse. Our authorities argue that the Norwegian oil and gas production is among the cleanest in the world. They obviously do not care about the CO2 abroad.
This is a Norwegian skin sanctity. Either it is a complete lack of knowledge. Or, it is a cynical political operation from most of the members of the Norwegian Parliament.
This is absolutely no climate measure.