Why do IPCC believers never doubt

Erik Bye

August 17, 2025

1. The CO2-hypothesis do not has any scientific documentation

Working with the hypothetic deductive method, you start with a hypothesis. Then you establish the observations and documentation that support your inquiry.

The original climate hypothesis was about the temperature increase in 2100. The hypothesis was declared in the AR1 by the IPCC in 1990: https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml

Three basic assumptions are violated:

1. There is no scientific documentation for the hypothesis at all.

2. There were no observations in 1990 to support the hypothesis.

3. The hypothesis can not be falsified without relevant observations.

Conclusion: The hypothesis has to be rejected.

2. The climate can not be modelled

According to IPCC, as stated in AR3, can the climate be modelled for future prediction?

«The Climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible».

«The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.»

«IPCC - TAR Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. G.2 Climate Processes and Modelling, page 78:

Conclusion: The climate can not be modelled. Future situations can not be predicted. Nobody knows anything about the future climate.

3. The temperature changes before the CO2 level.

In 2012, the three Norwegian researchers, Humlum, Stordahl, and Solheim, determined that the temperature changed before the CO2-level: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ S0921818112001658

Then the CO2 can not be the cause of any global warming. The cause must be in front of the results.

Conclusion: CO2 can not be the cause of the increased temperature.

4. The climate models are wrong

There has been an obvious defect with the climate models from day 1. The predictions are to high, all the time. The modeling is made in two steps. First the model is tuned with the calibration data. That is done with the existing observational data. Then the next step, the prediction is performed, based on the model, and the regression is performed as far as the model can handle.

The results do not fit with the real observations when the model results are controlled with real observations:

Here is a typical model picture:

This situation is typical. The model operators are satisfied due to a good fit for the calibration, but this is quite necessary. Without a high-quality turn with the calibration data, any modeling would have been useless.

Then the operators will argue with better models the next time. But the models fail again.

Now it might be an explanation for this constant failure:

The Nobel Fraud

In 2021, Syokuro Manabe was the Nobel Prize in Physics for his climate models. However, in 2024, Roy Clark showed that the models exaggerated the effect of the input data, e.g., CO2: https://climatechangedispatch.com/understanding-the-seven-majorerrors-in-climate-models/

These models have been used by the IPCC in all their main reports, from AR1 to AR6. Thus, this may be the explanation for the systematic errors in the climate modeling made by IPCC. One may ask: Why is this fraud not announced and used to correct the IPCC message?

I have informed both the EU Commission and the Swedish Academy of Sciences, without any efforts from the organisations to act in this failure. The EU Commission answered that they were assured about the quality of their work. The Academy has not answered. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-024-00832-w

https://thegwpf.org/publications/new-paper-computer-predictions-ofclimate-alarm-are-flawed/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/21/curry-computer-predictions-ofclimate-alarm-are-flawed/

Conclusion: The Climate models of IPCC exaggerate the effect of CO2.

5. The global Temperature does not exist

There is one concept that has followed the climate narrative since the first main report from IPCC, the AR1 or FAR. That is «the global Temperature». For one or another peculiar reason, this «one temperature concept for the whole world» has been accepted, both among the IPCC-believers, but also partly among the skeptics. One example here is the regular temperature diagram reported each month by Dr. Roy Spencer from UAH.

The diagram has been used to follow the global warming, as well as the weather pattern of El Niño and La Niña from 1979. However, the impossible situation with one temperature to describe the whole globe has been more and more obvious. Most of us will see the problem with one temperature describing the situation in: The North Pole, Sahara, Tibet, The Top of Mount Blanc, and at the Riviera, along the coast of the Mediterranean.

The Nobel Prize Laureate (1973), Professor Ivar Giaever in Physics, gave an

important contribution to this understanding in a debate in Norway in 2022. He was convincing on this topic: One single global temperature is impossible, and thus the CO2-hypothesis should be rejected.

https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/ globtemp.jnet.pdf

https://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Gray/ support_for_call_for_review_10Oct07.html

https://youtu.be/5DhEm1DKKj4?si=U_zCEEg35gKBGPMi

Conclusion: The global Temperature is a fantasy.

6. The Climate measures are Political issues

The first Climate measure, 2 degrees centigrade, was suggested by the politicians during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. The measure had no scientific documentation, and the value was taken out of thin air. The same is the situation for 1.5˚C.

But since the models can not predict, the use of the Climate measures is a

waste of time, nobody can say anything about the. Klimatest in 2100.

Conclusion: The Climate measures are political constructions.

7. The UN Sustainability Goals

To some extent, the sustainability goals have obtained far less attention than the Climate measures. The main attention has been on a suggested uncontrolled temperature increase, caused by the emission of fossil CO2.

Of all the 17 sustainable goals, no. 1: Remove poverty and no. 2: Removing hunger should have been emphasized much more. Poverty and hunger are more dramatic than 1-3 degrees of uncertain global warming during 70-80 years. Here, the Danish Researcher Bjørn Lomborg, through several years, has pointed to the importance of international aid. This, despite being an IPCC-believer. According to Lomborg, the aid is much more important than some degree of temperature increase.

Quite another question is the formulation of no. 13: Remove Climate Change. How is it possible to ask for a change of nature? No negative reaction to this goal has been reported. So far, the goal has not been given much attention. Hopefully, this continues.

Conclusion: The UN sustainability goal no. 13 should be

removed.

The final conclusions:

In spite of all the scientific documentation for no man-made global warming caused by the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate researchers connected to the message from the IPCC continue to act and argue as if no arguments challenge the IPCC-believers.

In addition to the verbal and written arguments, the IPCC and the believers deny accepting articles and reports that do not agree with the IPCC consensus. Here are some examples of such reports:

NIPCC

CLINTEL

44 scientists said no to cooperate with IPCC

The yearly climate reports of GWPF: 2020 - 2024

The Nobel Fraud

The total amount of opposing literature should have ended with at least an open, objective scientific discussion. So far, such an event is heartily wanted. There is no sign of any fundamental doubt! Do they think they are right?

Do they wish or hope they are right?

Do they fear the loss of credibility when admitting the fraud?

Do they hope that all the climate research funding will be removed?

Attachment

Preview YouTube video NASAs Big Mistake Exposed: Why Global Temperature is scientifically Meaningless with Jonathan Cohler