The Big Five – the worst Scandals of IPCC

Introduction

What is the invisible factor in the climate issue? The one that no one talks about in the alarmist camp? The one that matters most to the situation we are in, but that no one apparently “sees”? This is The Big Elephant in the Room. In addition, there are several small elephants as well. Here I have selected five of them.
Every one of these elephants in the room would have the entire false climate narrative canceled if it were acknowledged. What factors am I talking about?
In the same way as with the Elephant, the Lion, the Leopard, the Cape Buffalo and the Rhino, the Big Five in the African jungle, we can identify five profoundly serious cases of fraud in the climate issue:

1. The climate hypothesis lacks scientific documentation

In the period 1880 – 1935, global temperatures rose slightly, after the last ice age:

Figure 1. The temperature from NOAA

There was little or no attention to this. But then the temperature dropped in the period 1945 – 1970, and then climate scientists became anxious that we were entering a new ice age.

However, the view turned abruptly in 1971, because the temperature began to rise. And within 10 years (1980) there was anxiety about global warming. And not only that, but there was also speculation about whether it was the emission of fossil CO2, linked to oil and gas production, that was the cause.

In retrospect, it has been clarified that this climate scaremongering was initiated to create a new world order and a new world economy. There is much to suggest that, among other things, the WEF, i.e. the World Economic Forum, with its program Agenda 2030/2050, is behind this work. Of course, this is not talked about much, because it would undermine the whole issue of global warming and related man-made climate change. But I will leave that issue aside in this context.

The desire for world change and the fear of uncontrolled global warming led to the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) under the auspices of the UN. In 1992, the first main report from the IPCC, FAR (AR1), was published. It stated that no signs of the proposed global warming could be observed, because of fossil CO2 emissions.

But this changed in SAR (AR2), which came out in 1995. There it was stated, without further ado, that there were signs of the proposed global warming. This view was repeated and reinforced in the main reports AR3 – AR4, the last of which came out in 2010. By then, all doubt was gone, we had a strong and almost uncontrolled global warming. There was concern that the temperature would rise by 4-6 ˚C. In 2009, politicians had proposed a limit of 2 ˚C that the globe had to stay below, and a demand was made that we had to stay below 2 degrees C of warming by 2100. And this was the consensus of the UN and nearly all – 190 member states.

But here are the gross errors and scientific betrayal, that there was not a single peer-reviewed article in any scientific journal that documented this claim. And there is still no scientific documentation about this global warming and the associated man-made climate change.

So here is an entire world of deceitful talk about the risk of uncontrolled global warming. There is no scientific documentation for this. This is the most serious scandal in the entire climate case.

The IPCC-loyal climate scientists who know their scientific theory and philosophy know that they have no scientific basis for claiming what they do or believing in the media.

This is a major scandal, YES almost a disaster for science.

2. Michael Mann’s hockey stick

The second most serious fraud in the climate case is undoubtedly Michael Mann’s hockey stick. His models have been exposed several times, and each time have shown completely incorrect results. I came across a mention of the hockey stick for the first time in Onar Åm’s book (in Norwegian):
“The Fight for Climate. In Defense of Humanity” (2007).

The first edition of the Model came out in 1998. The result of the modeling was, as we have all heard, a temperature curve that went straight up to the sky, like the blade of a hockey stick, see the chart below. There was only one catch to it all, that even random numbers gave the same shape! No matter what numbers you put into the model, you got the Hockey Stick as an answer. The model was based on tree-ring data, but the model was obviously screwed together incorrectly.

Michael Mann corrected his model, but it still gave the same shape. According to the model, the temperature would rise by about 0.04˚C per year, or 4 degrees by 2100. Canadian statisticians Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre made the first revelation. The two must have obviously suspected that there was more wrong with the model. There was a lot of conflict about publishing data and procedures. When this was done, the two found that there was still a fundamental flaw in the model. The data set used to construct the model, i.e. the calibration, turned out to have been used twice, i.e., the data was duplicated in the model. When one set was removed, the hockey stick shape disappeared.

A scientific fraud of great dimension, and exposed thanks to McKitrick and McIntyre.

Here is a picture showing how the “stick” goes straight to heaven:

Figure 2. The Hockey-stick of Michael Mann

Here is a discussion of the revelation:

“Global Warming: Paleoclimate / Hockey Stick”

And here is an attempt to refute the revelations of McKitrick and McIntyre:

“What evidence is there for the hockey stick?”

But Michael Mann was not the type to step down. He is said to have expressed that he was part of the Nobel Prize in 2007. He had a Nobel diploma hanging in his office!

Now, in retrospect I would like to warn those who, for example, read Bjørn Samset’s climate book: “2070 Everything you wonder about the climate crisis, and how we can get past it” (2022). He boasts about the model and believes that it and Michael Mann are still completely flawless.

3. 0.3% chicken became 97% chicken by John Cook et al.

In 2010, a wholehearted attempt was made to deceive the entire world population with support for the IPCC in the climate issue. Now in retrospect, this is among the biggest scientific frauds committed in the climate issue.

Briefly, John Cook et al. reviewed approximately 12,000 scientific articles to determine the proportion that agreed with the IPCC’s view of global warming and human-caused climate change. They found that 97% of the articles supported the IPCC! Quite impressive!

It was just that John Cook et al. had processed the data in such a way that they got a 97% response, where the correct number was 0.3% (41 out of 11,944).

What is the background to such a fraud, and a scientific suicide?

Here are two comments on the work of John Cook et al.:

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

4. The Climate Goals Are Political Issues

One of the most central issues in this climate change discussion is the temperature goal. What is the temperature we must stay below, to avoid unwanted climate disasters? It might be much warmer, much wetter, windier, and regions of the Earth may be impossible to live in. The number of Climate refugees may increase incredibly, and international conflicts may increase.

And all this might be avoided if the climate goals are met or fulfilled. The first numeric goal was suggested by the politicians during the COP15 meeting in Stockholm in 2009. This was the 2-degree centigrade goal, we should not exceed before 2100! But this goal was presented by the politicians and had no Scientific documentation or at any practical meaning. After the Paris meeting in 2016, the climate goal was reduced to 1.5 ˚C.

The false narrative around these arbitrary temperature values is described in this article.

5. The Nobel Fraud

Syokuro Manabe was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021. He received the prize based on climate models that he had developed as early as 1987. These models have been used by the IPCC in all its main reports, AR1 – AR6.

What has been striking about all the IPCC model results is that the model values have been far above the observed temperature values.

The models are used so that they are first calibrated with known values. Then the models are used to predict future temperatures. And this is where it has systematically failed, time and time again. The figure below shows what this looks like:

Figure 3. Some model results compared to observations.

But in 2024, Roy Clark found the reasons why the models failed. In a very comprehensive work (73 pages), published in the Norwegian journal Science of Climate Change (SCC).

A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors!

Here Clark found that the models exaggerated the effects of the entered CO2 values. As mentioned, the IPCC has used these models in all its main reports up to now. So, it is not so strange that the IPCC’s modeling fails continuously.

By agreement with Roy Clark, he prepared a more popular version of his Abstract, shown here. (See p. 2)
The strange thing is that this scandal is almost passed over in silence. Nothing is written, nothing is done by those responsible, neither Manabe himself, the Swedish Academy of Sciences nor the IPCC. This does not make the scandal any less.

I have contacted both the Academy and the EU Commission, without much concern about the model errors. The Academy did not reply to me, and the EUC relied on the IPCC and its own quality assurance. This communication is discussed in the following article.

The Nobel Fraud

As long as no one intervenes in this mess, the IPCC reports will be completely worthless. The IPCC’s main job is to develop reliable and valid predictions. The IPCC itself ensures that this is completely impossible and will not happen on their watch!