Source - email
Scandals of the IPCC, Part 2 - Scandals 16 - 30
Erik Bye
September 5, 2025
Scandal 16: The exchange of a climate quote does not affect global warming
An economic climate quote is a very strange phenomenon. Even more strange is the bargain of such quotes. This is said to be a climate measure, but this does not affect the climate; only the wallet.
A climate quote is a specific amount of CO2 that a country can sell and another country can buy. The seller owns the quote due to lower CO2 emissions than determined in the Paris Agreement.
If f.ex. Norway does not achieve its climate goal; it can buy and substitute the shortage with such quotes. This sounds like a brilliant solution. But such a bargain does not reduce the emissions at all. It just helps the climate loser with a better conscience. This is an exchange of CO2 emissions for money! Those with low emissions help those who are powerless.
You pay to avoid a pinch.
However, remember that this quote system has no impact on the climate. CO2 has no impact on the climate. The sinner, e.g., the rich man, pays for a fictive, imaginary problem.
Scandal 17: CCS of CO2 has no climate effect
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is one of the methods to reduce the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The CO2 is captured at the production site, preliminary stored in tanks, transported to the well, and then piped down to about 2500 m. In the ground, the CO2 is safely stored. This is a part of The Green Deal. But this story is based on a fraud. The CO2 does not affect the temperature or the climate. The only results of these actions are a big economic cost for the participants.
Scientists have calculated the effect on temperature by the total removal of all CO2 emissions from 2024 to 2050. Happer and Wijngaarten used the assumptions of the alarmistic climate researchers in their calculations, and the temperature was reduced by 0.07˚C in total. And for an enormous cost. Is this reasonable? Is it sustainable:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/16/math-confirms-foolishness-ofclimate-alarmism/
This method of CO2 reduction is attributed to the green and alarmistic part of the active operators.
When and how will this impossible climate measure be implemented? avslørt.
The lack of any effects of these climate measures is obvious by the fact that the CO2 level increases by a quadratic curvature, remaining the same since 1950.
Scandal 18: The Ocean can not be acidic
The pH in the ocean is in the range 7.8 - 8.6. When CO2 dissolves in water, CO3 2- and H+ - ions are created:
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3, hydrolyzing to 2 H+ and CO3 2-
The definition of pH is:
pH = - log [H+]
When the [H+] increases, the pH value will decrease, and the ocean might be more acidic.
But here, several equilibrium equations control the system:
1. If the temperature increases, less CO2 can be dissolved in the water, and CO2 will be emitted. This is the function of Henry's law to control.
2. If the concentrations of the H+ - and the CO3 2- - ions become to high, CaCO3 will precipitate. This is controlled by the Law of Mass Action.
There is an enormous amount of Ca2+ ions in the ocean. This will take care of the CO3 2- amount and keep the ocean alkaline, with a pH > 7.
Hence, the ocean will normally never be acidic; this is just used to scare people.
The pH has dropped by 0.1 pH units during the last 50 years. Due to the logarithmic definition of pH, this is equal to a drop of 30%. The alarmists prefer to use 30% instead of 0.1 pH unit down. Although this is a variation within the normal range.
An alarmist told me once that he oreferred 30% down, because that sounds much worse.
Scandal 19: CO2 can not be removed from the atmosphere and the ocean simultaneously. Henry's law does not allow that
Henry's law takes care of the equilibrium between the concentration of CO2 in the ocean and the atmosphere:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry%27s_law
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/ Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/ Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/ Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Solutions_and_Mixtures/ Ideal_Solutions/Dissolving_Gases_In_Liquids_Henry's_Law
If you remove CO2 from the ocean, the atmosphere will send the corresponding amount of CO2 into the water, due to Henry's law.
This is an example of the order of nature.
It might be that the alarmists have heard of Henry’s law. But definitely not that it represents equilibrium. The principle of Le Chatelier is operating. As a consequence of an action, we will have a reaction.
Scandal 20: CO2 produces oxygen through photosynthesis
Many people are probably not aware of the production of oxygen in photosynthesis. This is the result of the transformation of CO2 to glycogen. For those who are not scared by a chemical reaction, photosynthesis can be described in this way:
6 CO2 + 12 H2O = C6H12O6 + 6 O2 + 6 H2O (with the help of endrgybfromnthe Sun light).
Has anybody heard from climate alarmists, about the reduction in oxygen production, along with the CO2-reduction? This reduction will inevitably reduce the production of oxygen as well.
Very few are aware that only 0.043% CO2 is in the atmosphere. Almost nobody knows about the oxygen production in photosynthesis.
This lack of knowledge implies that the Climate measures can not be trusted. The Green Deal results in less oxygen in the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982201001749
Scandal 21: The temperature data is erroneously homogenised
The observed and reported temperature data can not be trusted.
According to the climate scientists and the operators on the weather stations, the observed temperatures have to be homogenized. That means that the observed temperatures have to be adjusted if basic or standard conditions are changed or displaced. New observations have to be corrected in accordance with earlier observations.
However, this is not the operation. During the homogenization, older temperature values are systematically reduced, while the new values are increased. This gives an artificial increase in global warming. This is manmade, but in a manipulative manner.
This is shown by Bye and Humlum (2025):
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/?view=article&id=4366:norwayadministrative-human-caused-climate-
change&catid=216&highlight=WyJhbWVyaWthIiwia2VyaWsiLCJlcmlrIiwi YW1lcmlrYW5pc2NoZSIsImFtZXJpa2FuaXNjaGVuIiwiamFuLWVyaWsiLC JieWUiLCJlcmlrIGJ5ZSJd
This is pure madness, but the weather and official climate organisations do not bother!
Scandal 22: The weather stations are in bad condition
An investigation by Busing (2024) has revealed that the weather stations are in bad condition:
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-BuesingWeather-Station-Ageing-V4.2.pdf
They are old, the maintenance is deficient, and to a significant degree, they seem to be placed inappropriately. Much of the painting has disappeared and many of the. are positioned in hot places and in places even close to airports.
Some of these problems are described in the following article:
Tap the American flag to obtain a translation:
https://fakta360.no/2024/10/ny-studie-systematisk-feil-i-1880-2020globale-temperaturmalinger-42-kunstig-forhoyet/
These bad conditions have considerable effects on the temperature reported.
Nobody likes to talk about such systematic errors.
Scandal 23: The climate debate is dead, and freedom of expression is threatened
Something strange and rather peculiar has happened in Norway during the last 1-2 years. The official climate organisations have been more afraid of disinformation about the climate than the climate threat itself.
And the disinformation is originating from the people being critical of IPCC and the official, holy message from the Climate experts and the Politicians. The climate experts include climate researchers, leaders of universities and high schools, the Government, and the politicians in the Parliament. They are all convinced about the Green Deal and the phasing down of the oil- and gas production. And they all agree about the responsible entity: fossil CO2.
Is there an underlying wish for an Orwellian society?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
Scandal 24: The School system is indoctrinated about the climate
This indoctrination has taken place in the School system in Norway since 2007. Then the first textbook in Science for the age 13 - 16 was introduced, including a chapter about The Climate. The structure of the education was uniform. The pupils were told what to think and what to conclude. The youth had no possibility to establish a personal view. And the textbook had the hockey stick of M. Mann as the attraction point.
The same year, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to FN, the IPCC, and Al Gore.
The Indoctrination of the School system is probably the most important measure to influence public opinion on climate change.
The society of Orwell is introduced without a discussion.
This is described in this article. Tap the American flag to obtain the translation
https://fakta360.no/2024/02/indoktrinering-om-klima-i-norske-skoler/
Scandal 25: The critical journalist has disappeared
This seems to be a situation of a point of no return. In a meeting, the BBC decided to exclude all IPCC-critical opinions from their broadcasting platform. No critical opinions towards IPCC should be allowed in their programs, in their short News, or in their climate debates.
The BBC has an important impact on European countries. Their profile was adopted in Norway as well. All the critical opinions of IPCC were prohibited.
Now the journalists are just holding the microphones. No critical questions during the interviews. The critical, questioning, investigating, and wondering journalist is nonexistent. They have gone home.
And it is obvious that the knowledge about the climate is not present. It is quite strange, think the situation with a journalist without knowledge in sport, economy, foreign politics, or justice principles that should be responsible for the reporting of the relevant news.
Why is the professional journalist not curious about the questions related to the prerequisites for his existence?
Scandal 26: The total amount of CO2 is used in the climate
models
The most dramatic part of the climate change discussion started by identifying the «bad wolf» in 1990. This was the worker, producing oil and gas. And his weapon to destroy the earth and the climate was the fossil CO2. Fossil CO2 was accused of heating the earth, and the solution to avoid a catastrophe was to stop this industrial production.
In photosynthesis, the natural and fossil CO2 are identical; they are chemically identical. All the climate discussions were related to the fossil CO2. However, the IPCC has certainly realised that it was impossible to separate those entities. Thus, they included the total amount of CO2 in their models, see Figure.
This was done without any consideration. And the paradox is that the Earth has so far existed quite well with the natural CO2.
This is described in this article. Tap the American flag to obtain the translation.
https://fakta360.no/2024/05/net-zero-bruker-kun-menneskeskapt-co2men-modellene-bruker-all-co2/
Does the IPCC consider this failure at all?
Scandal 27: The IPCC excludes natural factors from the climate models
This is done indirectly by the exclusion of natural forcing in the models. An inspection of a factor table in AR6 will show the absence of natural factors. Here are the natural factors like clouds, wind, the sea, over- and underground volcanoes, and Earth's axis of rotation are not included. And even the Sun is included with a very low impact, 0.05 xxxx.
This situation is not commented on in AR6 at all.
I asked Bjørn Samset, a Climate Researcher at CICERO, Norway, about this strange variable håndtering. He was not concerned; the IPCC had calculated the contribution of the variable factors, and the impact was next to nothing. So, the natural forcings were set = 0. (nf = 0).
This is unbelievable, the sun, the clouds, the ocean, volcanoes, and f.eks. Earth's axis and Earth's rotation are set to zero. This is obviously the way IPCC handles unknown climate factors, without even a small note.
Scandal 28: The temperature has increased 1.07˚C in 175 years. Where is the dangerous global warming?
This phenomena have Wijngaarten and Happer calculated around (2024). They found that the temperature would not change more than 0.07˚C if all the CO2 were removed until 2050. That is almost too small to be measured. How the alarmistic Climate researchers will document this, as a global temperature increase, is a part of the narrative fantasy:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/16/math-confirms-foolishness-ofclimate-alarmism/
However, with a climate sensitivity close to zero˚C, it is reasonable with a temperature increase of next to nothing, even with a 50% increase in the CO2 concentration.
Such results are never commented on.
Scandal 29: There is no climate crisis
This is described by CLINTEL in the World Climate Declaration, with about 2000 signatures:
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/WCD-250723.pdf
Even the IPCC uses this kind of alarmistic language. The leader of IPCC, Jim Skea, has asked for a more moderate expression:
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-do-not-overstate-15-degreesthreat/a-66386523
And Professor William Happer has debunked the extreme climate events:
https://www.freedom-research.org/p/exclusive-interview-with-profwilliam
Scandal 30: Natural points of no return do not exist
The point of no return:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_no_return
The expression has its origin in the aircraft. At a certain point, you have to travel on!
But this expression has been misused for a long time in the climate change narrative. The alarmists use it to talk about natural points of no return.
The most frequently encountered phenomenon is the melting of glaciers. The alarmistic climate researchers watch the melting process. Although the glaciers around the world have been in a continuous movement, wth a decrease and increase in size for hundreds, millions of years, for the time being, now the decrease might end the glaciers' life. They have reached a point of no return, according to the glaciologists.
However, the glaciers have been moving back and forth at all times, so there is nothing new in this event.
It is just one way to scare people.