Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Global Warming Lies

An exposé by Climate Realist John O’Sullivan

Novelist, science writer and legal analyst specializing in anti-corruption, John O’Sullivan was born in Berkshire, England, of immigrant Irish parents in 1961. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England as well as successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit. John is established as the world’s most popular Internet writer on the greenhouse gas theory (source: Google) As an analytical commentator, O’Sullivan has published over 150 major articles worldwide.

O’Sullivan appearance on RT in 2010 -“Cracking the Climate Fraud Wide Open”

Note that the interview has numerous pictures of visible “steam” emanating from cooling towers and chimneys, etc. This is a tactic that plays on the ignorance of the general public who see only “pollution”, not harmless water vapour, and CO2 which of course is invisible.

 Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Global Warming Lies

This Graph is courtesy of Climate Realists website

The shocking truth is that all 5 official data sets show global cooling since 2002 while a third of all stations sustain a long term cooling trend for their entire history. Indeed, so infuriated over the blatant lies is Nobel Prize winning physicist, Dr. Ivar Giaever, that last week he resigned in disgust from the American Physics Society for their part in sustaining the now utterly debunked AGW propaganda.

The physics professor who scooped the Nobel Science Prize in 1973 sagely notes, “It is amazing how stable temperature has been over the last 150 years.” Professor Giaever and the rank and file of scientists are increasingly aware that the ‘consensus’ Cohen and his collaborators alludes to is little more than 77 of 10,000 scientists polled.

Surge in Government Climate Experts Going Skeptic

To further llustrate just how off base the political spin really is, just observe the increasing number of experts who actually worked for the IPCC as contributors / editors / reviewers now turning against global warming junk science. (Hat Tip: The Galileo Movement).

Below, is a list of just 50 former IPCC experts whose voices the prejudiced ears refuse to hear

1. Dr Robert Balling: “The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” (This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers).

2. Dr. Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”

4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”

5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”

6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.”

8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”

10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”

12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furor started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”

15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”

16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

17. Dr Kenneth Green: “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority.”

18. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen.”

19. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

20. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”

21. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”

22. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,”

23. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

24. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

25. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”

26. Dr. Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”

27. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

28. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

29. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”

30. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”

31. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

32. Stephen McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a “consensus of thousands of scientists” are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”

33. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”

34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”

35. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

36. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

37. Dr Jan Pretel: “It’s nonsense to drastically reduce emissions … predicting about the distant future-100 years can’t be predicted due to uncertainties.”

38. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”

39. Dr Murray Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the “science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”

40. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

41. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites–probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?”

42. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”

43. Dr Roy Spencer: “The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal.”

44. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”

45. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”

46. Dr Robert Watson: “The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened.”

47. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”

48. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

49. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”

50. Dr. Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines… a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication.”


So then have the temperatures really been rising where you live ?

Type your own choice in the box – City, State ( eg. Brisbane, Australia)

The Graph may take several minutes to draw, because a lot of data must be searched through, and of course this applet has become very popular, as people want to see the truth of the real measurements at their location, for themselves. 

Should the results not change when picking a time period, then click the More link on the pop-up results containing the graph, and select time period again. Has it warmed, or not ?
(eg. in Brisbane, Australia – it hasn’t warmed in over 60 years !)
(eg. in Austin, Texas, USA – it hasn’t warmed in over 70 years !)

(This Widget may sometimes not work with MS Internet Explorer version 6 or 7)

 Write to your MP or MSP and ask them why they go along with the hoax.

See Climate Realists Website For More Stories – Thumbnail Link at Foot Of This Page

SEE ALSO STORY :  John O’ Sullivan Censored for Revealing the CO2 Truth

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Fifty IPCC Experts Expose Global Warming Lies

  1. Jacob Stewart says:

    Wow that is great graph, but where do the data and results come from ?

    • With the main Graph at the head of the story, Although sourced from Climate Realists website, this graph originated from data provided by the Climate 4 You organisation. The actual data shown was compiled by, University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT3).

      When the Widget is displayed in the pop-up box,
      scroll down until you see the link “Source information »”
      Click that link and the following subheading appears ….

      Weather forecast data source information
      Primary source:
      Wolfram|Alpha knowledgebase, 2011.
      Background sources and references:

      Click the line “Background sources and references:”
      and a list of data references will appear, more details
      about this are available at the main Wolfram Alpha website,
      or you can just click any of the data references to go to them.

  2. futureboy says:

    That is a very good report. It is no longer possible for any remotely honest politician or journalist to support the catastrophic warming fraud.

    In a couple of years we will probably be seeing the BBC, SNP, LD, Labour and Conservative activists saying they never personally pushed it.

  3. Pingback: Âlvestêdetocht giet oan! Dankzij de zon | AmsterdamPost

  4. Pingback: Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record - Page 50

  5. drtch says:

    Very refreshing to see some rationality in discussing this issue. Congrats!!
    Dr. Halle, Los Angeles, Calif., USA

  6. drtch says:

    I never cease to be appalled by how many generally intelligent people have taken the GW premise as Gospel. I.e., on the first Thom Hartmann probram on KPFK-FM (Los Angeles) today, the host strongly emphasized how critical it was to head off certain disaster, as a result of “Global Climate Change.” Most of the folks on this (in some ways very impressive activist station) have shown up on the “wrong side” of the issue. My guess is that Hartmann “saw the writing on the wall,” and decided to go along with the junk GW party-line. Terribly disappointing.

  7. rico says:

    Look into Global Dimming and Chemtrails and you will see why global climate warming seems to have slowed.

    • Indeed these things do have some effect, it’s just that those effects are not quantifiable. There isn’t any regime of measurements, nor any formulae which could be sensibly applied to rationalise the climatic effects. Yes some agencies and even Governments are attempting to tinker in the fashion you describe and a number of videos are available on YouTube and on DVD, which go into explanations of these phenomenae. Yet it is doubtful whether they are able to swamp the natural variations in a global sense, even if short term local variations may be possible.

      “What in the World are They Spraying?”

      “Why in the World are They Spraying?”

    • neilfutureboy says:

      If the catastrophic global warming we were promised can be prevented by aircraft contrals and smog in the upper atmosphere then, by definition, the various proposals to deliberately put up suphur crystals or stratospheric dust (at a cost of billions not trillions)can have an even greater cooling effect and if CAGW ever were a problem it is an easily soluble one.

      It is noticeable that nobody is more opposed to geoengineering solutions to CAGW than those who claim it is such a serious and pressing problem that we have to close down western civilisation, which strongly indicates what their real agenda is.

  8. Mose says:

    I’m gone to inform my little brother, that he should also visit this web site on regular basis to take updated from newest news.

    [editors note – The URL linked to in your name is defunct and deleted by the host because of some copyright issue. Readers may wish instead to revise Ohm’s Law at this Wikipedia Page]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s