The deafening Silence
Erik Bye
November 21, 2025
Silence reigns
It is a strange situation we have with the climate issue now. Even though there are two parties in the case, who are in sharp disagreement, there is silence in all debate channels and all MSM platforms. Here, the two scientific views clash on paper, but the dispute is silent in the public space.
Silence reigns over the climate debate. Despite two opposing camps with sharply different views, mainstream media and public forums remain quiet. The disagreement exists on paper, but public discussion has all but vanished.
The establishment of the IPCC
The dominant narrative, supported by the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), asserts that fossil fuel emissions drive global warming. Their goal is to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, reflecting concern over human-induced climate change.
Critics argue that this view is flawed, claiming insufficient evidence that fossil CO₂ emissions significantly impact global temperatures. Some research suggests the warming effect from fossil fuels is too small to measure globally.
The IPCC was established in 1988 after growing concern about rising global temperatures replaced earlier fears of cooling. Its mandate was to provide policymakers with scientific assessments of climate change, its impacts, and possible responses.
After the Climate Clan had been anxious about a new ice age from 1945 to 1975, the fear turned as the temperature began to rise. Within 10 years, the fear of uncontrolled global warming became so widespread that the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, was established in 1988, with the following objectives:
“In 1988, the IPCC's goal was to provide policymakers with scientific assessments of human-induced climate change, its impacts, and potential response strategies.” During the period up to 2014, four main reports were published,AR1 -AR4, in which global warming was emphasized. The first climate goal was set in 2009, and then it was proposed to stay below 2 degrees of warming by 2100. But there was no scientific documentation to justify this number.
The main reports AR1 -AR4
During the period 1992 to 2014, there was a veritable climate debate between these two parties, for and against the IPCC. The discussion took place in debates and on all MSM channels. The language used was harsh, with harassment and control techniques abounding. IPCC supporters referred to consensus and that the scientific question had been settled. “Science is settled.” The most persistent on the IPCC side believed that only their climate scientists could speak out. In Norway, the IPCC believers reached rock bottom when Bjørn Samset made his harassing remarks about mature, critical, highly qualified scientists in the real sciences in 2013:
https://www.allaboutenergy.net/environment-man-made-all-pointseurope?view=article&id=4558:norway-bullying-and-harassment-of-olderscientists&catid=216
NIPCC
As a counterbalance to the IPCC, the NIPCC, Non-governmental International Panel of Climate Change, was established under the auspices of the Heartland Institute. The counterbalance consists primarily of the fact that the NIPCC prepared climate reports that included the literature that the IPCC omitted. This is the literature that is critical to the CO2 hypothesis and human-caused climate change:
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/nongovernmental-internationalpanel-climate-change-nipcc
https://climatechangereconsidered.org/
With their attitude to this literature review, which the IPCC completely ignored, they contributed to the scientific silence.
The meeting at the BBC
But around 2015, something happened that changed everything. The BBC decided that opponents of the IPCC would be banned from their newscasts. Critical spokespeople were denied access, and responsible employees were to promote the IPCC's message. This spread to all MSM channels, and newspapers and magazines stopped printing articles that went against the official climate view. In Norway, it was also decided among the journals that it was the green view that should be emphasized, critical views were considered as disinformation.And in addition, this was decided in NRK, the Norwegian Broadcaster: This NRKs climate journalism - The Broadcaster in Norway:
The Goal
The goal of NRK's climate journalism is to enable everyone in Norway to participate in the climate discussions and make good choices, and in this way strengthen and develop democracy. NRK will tell world-class climate stories to the audience.
Currently
Current climate research shows that man-made climate change is taking place. NRK is fact-oriented and bases its coverage on this.
The importance
The important debates in society now revolve around how to adapt to or mitigate warming. Our coverage should primarily be about how to act, not whether to act.
False balance
Be aware of the false balance: NRK is concerned with covering all sides of an issue, but when we let those who deny climate science in, it requires that we ask the right counter-questions. If NRK often raises the debate about whether climate
change is man-made, we can give the audience the impression that scientists disagree more than they do.
Counter-questions
At the same time, we must also ask relevant counter-questions to everyone (others) who makes claims in the climate debate. There are many reasons to highlight different views in the climate debate: This could be about how fast warming is happening, for example, or about which solutions are best to reduce warming.
Unanswered questions
There are many unanswered questions here. Here too, it is important that journalists are clear about the background of the interviewee and how to challenge him or her in a good way.
In CICERO, the director, Kristin Halvorsen, went so far as to refuse her climate scientists to debate against Climate Realists: CICERO is a Research Institute that contributes to climate Research on a high international level. We will certainly participate in the official climate debate with our knowledge and research. We have on several occasions shown that the arguments from Klimarealistene (Norwegian) can not be verified in science. However, we do not find it reasonable to participate in discussions with them if we do not have a common understanding of the quality demands deemed necessary in a science debate.
My Regards
Kristin Halvorsen
GWPF
One of the report series that the IPCC has apparently never cared about or commented on is the annual reports of the GWPF, written by Ole Humlum, in the period 2021-2024. This provides a thorough overview of the most important climate factors.And of course, the message: that climate change is natural and that global warming comes before the increase in CO2.
This basic message may be the reason why the IPCC neglects these reports. Scientifically speaking, it is quite striking that the international organization, IPCC, which strictly argues to have a message based on supposedly hard science, refuses to enter a discussion with the opposition.
With their attitude to this literature review, which the IPCC completely overlooked, they contributed to the scientific silence. Here is an example of a GWPF annual report:
https://thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2025/10/The-State-of-the-Climate-2024.pdf
The deafening Silence
At this point, the debate climate and freedom of expression changed dramatically. The climate debate disappeared from the official broadcasters. Magazines and newspapers refused to publish critical articles. The only climate articles that were allowed to appear were those that supported the IPCC's view.
My contacts disappeared in 2023-2024.
All the climate disasters that were hushed up. Journals that refused to accept scientific articles that documented errors at the IPCC. Norway took note of this and established a journal with peer review that was open to both views. However, the experience so far is that the IPCC clan publishes in its closed journals.
This resulted in increased activity on websites that looked at the climate issue with scientific eyes. Here we can mention TWTW (SEPP), No Trick Zone and not least WUWT. The establishment of the CLINTEL organization has also gained an increasingly central and important position, with its Newsletter, with a significant amount of knowledge that is critical of the IPCC's doctrines.
Examples of personal experience, something that is golden. Breaks with the hypothetical deductive method.
In the period 2022 - 2024, one contact disappeared after another.
First up was senior researcher at CICERO, Bjørn Samset. In an email series with several critical questions, I ended up with:
How can the IPCC set radiative forcing for Nature = 0?
He replied that they had not set the level to zero; it was calculated to be very low. Thus, they chose to round it down to zero.
Consequence: Nature has no impact on Climate.
IPCC calculated Solar Effect = 0.12W/m2.And Solar = 0 is the only natural effect in modelling.After that, the director of Communication, Christian Bjørnæs, answered all the emails to Samset. Number one.
In this mail series, many of the same questions were directed to climate researcher Hans Olav Hygen.Among others, he was asked about his belief in the CO2 hypothesis, sinceArrhenius was falsified in 2019. No answer was given. But the conversation continued until he stated that the climate model did very well. Looking at some of the latest results, this is obviously wrong.After a while, he was obviously tired of my critical questions, and he refused to continue the dialogue. Number two.
Rasmus Benestad is described here:
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/how_to_destroy_the_climate_debate__eb?ff&backgroundColorFullscreen=%23900000&pageLayout=singlePage
He became tired of my questions:
1. If there is 50% of an effect, is it also 50% for a non-effect?
Answers: You are dealing with unimportant details.
2. How do you evaluate my modelling of the ONI-values?
Answer: What are the ONI-values? This, despite his PhD on El Niño.
3.After he attacked me, with the help of lawyers, and when I asked about the development in that case, for the second time, Complete silence. Number three.
Terje Wahl, the General Director for the Norwegian SpaceAgency (NOSA) and I had a conversation for several months about global warming and man-made climate change. He must have believed that he could convince me that I was wrong. When I concluded with my climate standing, he realized that I wouldn’t change my viewpoints, he characterized all my emails as garbage, and that was the end. Number four.
In this way, these IPCC-believers contribute to complete silence.
The silence became deafening. We have a Norwegian saying for this:
“To speak is Silver, but Silence is Golden.” This is certainly not meant for scientific truth.
In 2021, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Syukuro Manabe, Klaus Hasselmann, and Giorgio Parisi for groundbreaking work on climate modeling and complex systems. While some critics question the accuracy of climate models, the award recognized significant contributions to understanding climate dynamics.
There is a striking silence around the Nobel scandal from 2021, when Syukuro Manabe et al. were wrongly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.
He received the prize primarily because of his climate models, which Roy Clark has shown to be completely flawed. In short, the models exaggerate the effect of the CO2 data in the modeling. These models have been used by the IPCC in all the main reports, fromAR1 toAR6. The consequences of this are that the IPCC models have failed time and time again. The model results have been significantly above the observed temperature values and have laid the foundation for the erroneous IPCC conclusion that fossil CO2 emissions led to so-called anthropogenic climate change. This is described by Roy Clark here:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-major-errors-inclimate-models/
Quiet as the grave
If one considers the international situation surrounding the climate issue, the Green Deal and the demand to phase out oil and gas production, one would have expected a veritable uprising after this Nobel scandal. But it is silent and as quiet as in the grave.
This should be reported as a world sensation, Breaking News.An entire world has been fooled by the UN and IPCC’s climate scaremongering, and the ordinary citizen is completely indoctrinated. But nothing is happening; the issue is dead!
I have informed the EU Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, but they were confident in their own and the IPCC's professional assessments and their own routines for quality assurance, whatever that means in this context.
I have informed the SwedishAcademy of Sciences about this scandal, without them having given any response.
The matter has been discussed on NoTricksZone, TWTW-SEPP and on WUWT, without any reactions.
What do the climate scientists who are on the side of the IPCC think when such gross errors appear? There are no thoughts that are reflected in reports of concern. And the UN chief,Antonio Guterres, comes forward as if nothing had gone wrong. Thousands of serious, critical scientists, including climate scientists, have probably resigned and given up the professional fight, with the UN, SEF, WWF, and nearly 200 obedient member states as opponents. Those in power have ensured total indoctrination of those who blindly trust the UN and the climate panel. The BBC took the initiative to silence all IPCC opposition by refusing to allow skeptics to speak. This has spread to almost all MSM channels; no critical stances on the IPCC doctrines are allowed to operate.
Practical consequences
None of the climate measures work; they have no effect on the climate or temperature. For the climate, it really doesn't matter if the whole world believes in man-made climate change. This does not harm the climate. Critical researchers can do three things:
1. Pretend as if nothing has happened.
2. Spend as much time as possible on promoting their critical position.
3. Deal with those who are wrong and ensure that they get research grants.
The fewest researchers in the world are affected by this dispute, and nature will sort out the climate itself. The biggest problem is the outrageous expenses associated with the Green Deal, the investment in new renewable energy and the achievement of climate goals. The latter is especially costly. In a global context, we are talking about thousands of billions for climate measures that have no effect, that have no significance.
What happens now?
Can this silence be broken, and if so, how and when?
Libya, Iran, and Yemen have signed the ParisAgreement but have faced challenges in ratification or implementation. The United States withdrew in 2020 under the Trump administration but rejoined in 2021 under President Biden. Claims of a 2025 withdrawal remain a work in progress.
One of the key tasks of the UN in this climate issue is to keep track of the climate goals of the individual member states. Now it may seem as if more countries care less about agreements and climate goals. In the spring of 2025, only 15 countries out of a total of 194 member states had announced new climate goals, as agreed with the UN. This is a clear sign that the world is not taking climate goals seriously. Right before COP30, only 64 UN countries had announced new climate goals, and this increased during COP30 to 111 (of 194) countries. This says a lot about the seriousness that countries are now taking in this work.
Donald Trump is looking for reduced costs. He has significantly reduced the US contribution to the IPCC. He has ensured reduced activity around several climate institutions in the US, such as NOAAand NASA. What this will mean in the long term is difficult to see. Will reduced activity here affect the rest of the world? Could similar reductions occur in other countries? Will skepticism spread among the population of the world? Is it that people react to the fact that there is no climate change because of climate measures? Is it only enormous costs that can be registered?
What is the climate evidence of the IPCC's neglect?
- The lack of documentation for the CO2-hypothesis
- The falsification ofArrhenius
- The impossible modelling of climate
- The temperature increases before the CO2 level increases
- The undocumented climate targets
- The erroneous climate modelling
- The neglect of critical literature
- The world's need for CO2
- The world's need for fossil energy
- The climate sensitivity (ECS) is calculated to be close to 0.0˚C
Concluding remarks:
Can one imagine an international People's Revolt? No to costly and useless climate measures!
What has happened after Trump?
- Out of the ParisAgreement
- Out of the IPCC
- Reorganization of NASA, NOAA, DOE and the EPA
The UN does not follow up on the announcement of new climate targets.
At COP30 in Belém, Brazil, discussions focused on scaling back climate finance commitments. Initial trillion-dollar ambitions were revised downward to billions, reflecting economic constraints and shifting priorities.
The Green Parties are losing ground, wind power is losing ground, and industry is faltering.
Do we have to win the battle for science? Is the Climate Fortress impenetrable? Is budget death the only way out?