Defund the IPCC Now

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Well, I woke up to some bad news this morning. It turns out that the GAO, the US General Accounting Office, says US has been secretly hiding their funding of the IPCC for the last decade.

They were already told not to do that by the GAO. In the 2005 GAO report with the swingeing title of “Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete”, the GAO said … well, basically what the title said. But noooo, those sneaky bureaucrats didn’t do that at all.

The latest 2011 GAO Report says the US government has not changed their ways. They have been clandestinely providing about half the operating funds for the IPCC for the last decade. In other words, the IPCC funding arrangements are of a piece with their “scientific” claims and their other actions—secretive, shabby, with a hidden agenda, and full of disinformation.

The report says that the State Department provided $19 million dollars to the IPCC. Thanks, guys. Foolish me, I hadn’t realized that paying for bureaucrats to go party in Cancun and Durban was part of the function of the United States Department of State.

I also found out that the IPCC got $12.1 million dollars from the US Global Change Research Program. That one really angrifies my blood. The IPCC flat out states that they do not do a single scrap of scientific research … so why is the US Global Change Research Program giving them a dime, much less twelve million, that was supposed to go for research? I could use that for my research, for example …

The 2011 GAO report had some strong advice for the climate profiteers behind this secretive funding. They said:

“Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change funding or spending over time,”

Oh, no, wait, that’s what the GAO said back in 2005. Unfortunately, they have no enforcement powers. What they said this time around was that the funding information:

“… was not available in budget documents or on the websites of the relevant federal agencies, and the agencies are generally not required to report this information to Congress.”

In other words … no change from 2005.

Congressfolk, you are not paying attention. These guys are taking money for research and using it to party in Durban and other nice places around the planet. And the US has been secretly funding them for a decade.

Can anyone name for me one valuable thing that the IPCC has done? Can anyone point to an accomplishment by the IPCC that justifies their existence? Because I can’t. They throw a good party, to be sure, their last global extravaganza had 10,000 guests … but as for advancing the climate discussion, they have done nothing but push it backwards.

And the next Assessment Report, AR5, will be even more meaningless than the last. This time, people are watching them refuse to require conflict-of-interest statements from the authors. This time, people are watching them appoint known serial scientific malfeasants to positions of power in the writing of the report. This time, people are keeping track of the petty machinations of the railroad engineer that’s running the show despite calls from his own supporters to step down.

As a result, the AR5 report from the IPCC has been pre-debunked. It will be published to no doubt great fanfare and sink like a stone, dragged down by the politicized, poorly summarized bad science and rewarmed NGO puff pieces that the IPCC is promoting as though they were real science.

Folks … can we call a long overdue halt to this IPCC parade of useless and even antiscientific actions? Can we stop the endless partying at taxpayer expense? Can we “trow da bums out” and get back to climate science?




PS—The GAO report is available here. And all is not lost, at least one Congressman is working to defund the IPCC:

 Wrapped into the many amendments recently passed by the House of Representatives — a total of $60 billion in spending cuts that the president called a “nonstarter” — was one by Republican Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the group whose occasional missteps have been the source of countless confrontations among climate scientists over the past year.

A congressional aide told that he plans to pursue the bill — regardless of whether it is passed in the larger Republican budget.

“The congressman plans to continue his effort to stop taxpayer support of the IPCC and remains cautiously optimistic that the Senate will take the amendment,” said Keith Beardslee, a spokesman for the congressman. “Failing that, Blaine has reintroduced separate legislation he first introduced in the 111th Congress to halt funding to the IPCC.”





newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rob Starkey

I completely agree, but unfortunately the US Congress is currently pretending that we can spend more than we take in in revenue indefinately and that the cost to service the debt is meaningless. That won’t last of course, but it is getting harder to fix without ever greater pain

kbray in california

“…people are keeping track of the petty machinations of the railroad engineer that’s running the show…”
I rode on a train once in India…. “HE” could have been my driver…!
Surely that qualifies me for some grade of position at the IPCC.
(that’s a sarc by the way)

Willis: “Congressfolk, you are not paying attention. These guys are taking money for research and using it to party in Durban and other nice places around the planet. And the US has been secretly funding them for a decade.”
Back to the basic fundamental problem we humans can’t seem to get straight. Politics and politicians, rather than ethical servant leadership.

Frank K.

The report says that the State Department provided $19 million dollars to the IPCC.
Could someone explain how the IPCC fits within the the mission of the US State Department? Is it the “Intergovernmental” part of IPCC?
Again – for all US citizens who are reading these comments. Please , remember this (and the many, many other instances of misspent climate funding) in November – the ONLY way to defund anything in the government is to have representatives with the backbone to do something (or at least speak up).
Personally, I would like to see this issue of funding cast in terms of choices. For example, do we want the IPCC funded or, instead, programs to fight poverty, disease, crime, etc. ??


I haven’t looked at every Federal government agency budget but have looked at several over the past year and noticed that AGW funding is quite common. DoD, DOE, NASA, and EPA all have significant programs… some of which are obviously related to “climate change” and others where it is somewhat hidden (e.g., biofuel research). I also knew that the State Department had a budget for climate change but until reading this post, I had no idea what it was for. To call this pathetic would be an understatement. I suspect that if you looked, the Department of (indoctrination) Education has global warming in its budget as does every other agency. It’s time to clean house in Washington.

Bloke down the pub

Doesn’t this count as part of the green jobs creation scheme?


“Folks … can we call a long overdue halt to this IPCC parade of useless and even antiscientific actions? Can we stop the endless partying at taxpayer expense? Can we “trow da bums out” and get back to climate science?”
oh, sure!


Theres nothing really surprises me anymore about this whole climastrology lark.
Matters not how deep the depths, they will plumb them.
the only time this will al change is when the worms finally get out the can.
Mr FOIA, do your thing huh?

defund the whole UN!


Willis, great reporting as always. I’m from Calif. so it is a waste of my time to contact my representatives on this issue. However, I will try to persuade my out–of-state friends and relatives to contact their representatives.
FYI, in the spirit of the global warming > climate change > climate disruption name game, the General Accounting Office(GAO) is now called the Government Accountability Office. Whatever, they call it, it frequently does a good job ferreting out government waste and corruption. The unfortunate part, as you state, it doesn’t have any enforcement powers.

Now thats what I call great timing Willis!
Please add your voices to the latest post at the talkshop calling for the IPCC to stop calling itself a scientific organisation.


Nothing will be defunded, as this year there will be another happy “jamboree” at Rio de Janeiro……Samba!!!
If you want an invitation it´s very simple: You must be cool, gay, atheist, believing that most of the humanity-those peaky ,bad smelling, and dirty working for life individuals must die (and to cooperate to do it asap by giving them a convenient newly developed “flu vaccine”), have white and powdery and sustainable “aspirations” through your non polluted by CO2 nostrils, be a faithful follower and if possible slave of your elite masters (members of the holy “White Brotherhood” who care about the sustainability of their own also holy profits), etc.etc.

Steve (Paris)

FOIA action called for here.

I’m compiling a list of research grants received by UK universities for climate change related projects. Still waiting for most FOI’s to come back in, but the amounts so far in are quite startling.

James Allison

Synthesis Repork – Snouts feeding at the trough?

John from CA

Can anyone name for me one valuable thing that the IPCC has done?
Yes, they proved they aren’t ready nor are likely to ever represent the Scientific Community on global issues. They are the low bar to use for future policy related to science funding — assuming the politico boobs finally wake up and see it for what it is.

It is the ripple effect. America dumped 320 million into a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgia because of these fearmongering studies and claims. That plant never produced and was just sold for 5.1 million.
The collateral damage for the carbon Climate cartel is still hitting the trillions.

John from CA

tallbloke says:
January 5, 2012 at 11:28 am
Happy New Year — did the wankers finally return your laptop?


The U.S. are paying a lot of money for decades now to fund a platform for US and capitalism haters to get organized. Was originally thought the other way around, probably.
I really imagined you guys would be smarter.


Great stuff! …. Umm… Except for that whole confusion between the IPCC – a relatively small office in Geneva, and the UN FCCC which runs the COP meetings in Durban and Copenhagen. Don’t get so caught up in your rhetoric that you throw facts to the winds now….


WillieB – while your senators are useless, not all your representatives are, depending on your location. I don’t know if this would fit on Issa’s plate, for example, but I’m sure it’s the kind of thing he’d oppose.
Frankly, everyone involved in hiding political funding like this needs to be ON THE STREET tomorrow, looking for a job in the private sector, but that won’t happen unless we have a MAJOR shake-up this November at the polls.
Frankly, I worry that corruption has become too institutionalized, and the practice of using the law as toilet paper too widespread. “Fixing” things like this is no longer a simple thing, if it ever was.

“Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Repork

jack morrow

Out of the UN too!

John from CA

Neil says:
January 5, 2012 at 11:48 am
Great stuff! …. Umm…
Very little confusion about a fop Science arm for the UNFCCC? I completely agree if that was the drift of your comment.

Owen in Georgia

We shouldn’t be funding the UN FCCC either. In fact I am ready to say we should stop funding any UN programs at all. If something is worth doing we should fund it directly and avoid the corrupt middle men.

The 2011 version of Mr. Luetkemeyer’s bill is H. R. 680,

Oh, how the mind plays tricks…
First saw “Synthesis Report” in the graphic because that is what my mind expected to see, having been exposed to that title many times.
Took me a bit to see it actually says “Synthesis Repork”.
Good one.

Mike M

Yes I agree but really… $19 million is a drop in the bucket, (less than 1%), compared to BILLION$ being wasted every year exclusively on “Combating Climate Change”.

Dr Burns

>>Can anyone name for me one valuable thing that the IPCC has done?
Very valuable to the Oz government. The IPCC is the reason we are getting a carbon tax.

John from CA says:
January 5, 2012 at 11:39 am
tallbloke says:
January 5, 2012 at 11:28 am
Happy New Year — did the wankers finally return your laptop?

HNYY to you John. The lappys came back near the end of last week. Haven’t dared turn them on though. Awaiting a check up.

I’ve written repeatedly there should be organized crime hearings about all the taxpayer money spent because of AGW claims. I also believe the US taxpayer has good reason to file a class action lawsuit against the government for aiding in the theft of millions of dollars (as in Solyndra).
All we’d need would be one young, energetic attorney eager to grab some headlines early on. Enviro groups sue us (via the states) all the time. Why can’t we sue those groups in return?
Otherwise, really enjoyed this read and cited you in my column this afternoon. Must commend you on making a verb of ‘anger.’ That was inspired. I like to tweak words too. best, KBD

If you live in the US, you might want to forward this URL to your Congressional Representatives and suggest they shut down the UN IPCC Funding. I posted the report on my blog and then sent a link to my Congressman McClintock! Ask your Congressman and Senator why they are buying the UN fraudsters rope to strangle our economy? I did not it send to my CA Senators, as both are rabid warmers. You cannot imagine the junk responses I get back from Sen. Boxer when I send her some climate change facts. Well, maybe you could as a WUWT reader.


taxpayers are suckered again:
4 Jan: Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Georgia ethanol plant sold, at taxpayers’ loss
The failed Range Fuels wood-to-ethanol factory in southeastern Georgia that sucked up $65 million in federal and state tax dollars was sold Tuesday for pennies on the dollar to another bio-fuel maker with equally grand plans to transform the alternative energy world.
LanzaTech, a New Zealand-based biofuel company, paid $5.1 million for the plant in Soperton. Its main financial backer: Vinod Khosla, a California entrepreneur who also bankrolled Range Fuels, and helped secure its government loans, before Range went bust last year.
LanzaTech hasn’t received the same type of loans, but the company has received $7 million from the U.S. departments of Energy and Transportation to assist in the development of alternative fuels…
The Bush administration’s Energy Department steered a $76 million federal grant to Range. The Department of Agriculture followed up with an $80 million loan guarantee. Georgia officials pledged $6.2 million. Treutlen County, one of the state’s poorest, offered 20 years worth of tax abatements and 97 acres in its industrial park.
Private investors reportedly put up $158 million. In all, the project raised more than $320 million.
Range, unable to turn wood into ethanol, closed its doors a year ago. It never came close to creating the 70 jobs once promised…

Hi Willis
Neil is right that you are confusing IPCC and UNFCCC. But if the money is going to IPCC this is even more interesting. We all understand that going to the climate conferences in Kopenhagen, Cancun and Durban costs a lot of money. But IPCC doesn’t organise these. It is always said that scientists work voluntarily on the IPCC reports. In practice this means their institutes accept that for a year or two employers will spend part of their time writing an IPCC chapter. If the US government paid 19 million, where was the money going to? Partly to institutes like NOAA and NCAR where a lot of scientists work that contributed to AR4?
Cheers, Marcel

Rational Debate

Jump the rails an order of magnitude – defund the grossly corrupt UN!!

Al Gored

With a UN patsie in the White House, little hope of anything like this happening, but we can still be ‘hopey changey’ for some steps in this direction as this whole project falls apart.
Neil says:
January 5, 2012 at 11:48 am
“the IPCC – a relatively small office in Geneva”
Yes, nice the way these parasites choose to house themselves in THE most expensive and comfortable place possible. Since Switzerland is not an EU member, but the EU seems to be the last stronghold of this insanity, they should move their offices to some dreary city in the Ruhr Valley and rent space in an abandoned steel mill. Or perhaps move to Greenland to bask in the heat.


My, My – it has been good to be a climate scientist over the last decade, hasn’t it?
Don’t expect them to go quietly.


It was never a question WHO was funding the majority of the UN climate change thrust – any damn fool knew it was the US government. Just as the majority of the UN itself is funded by the US government – that the IPCC and its various branches would by fully or partly funded by the US taxpayers should not be a shock to anyone. Where else would the UN get the bucks? From the third world? Russia? The Arabs? China? Not likely.
Nor should it be a surprise to any American their congress has lost total control of their budgetary process decades ago. LOL – you don’t get to be $15 TRILLION in debt and with no one held responsible for your debt across the board and then expect accountability in the budgetary process do you? Moreover Americans care very little and will hold no one responsible as most ALL congressmen and women will be re-elected.
You Americans may NOT be in Kyoto but you ARE funding the entire show and ARE Kyoto for all intents and purposes. Canada and Japan at least had the common sense to tell the IPCC exactly where to shove Kyoto. The Americans ARE the monster behind the entire climate change thrust without which the UN IPCC monstrosity would collapse over night. And THAT is hard cold FACT!


don’t back down, China:
5 Jan: UK Telegraph: Peter Simpson: Chinese airlines warn they will refuse to pay EU carbon tax
China’s biggest airlines warned on Thursday they will refuse to pay a new EU tax aimed at cutting carbon emissions.
The China Air Transport Association was more militant in its response – declaring its members would not co-operate with the ETS and refuse to pay the added tax.
It also said it would seek legal action and try and attempt to form an international alliance to scrap the scheme…
China is likely to be able to pull unusually heavy punches in the dispute as its air carriers ferry hundreds of thousand of passenger from Asia into Europe’s troubled markets, including the tourist sector…


Frank K. says:
Could someone explain how the IPCC fits within the the mission of the US State Department? Is it the “Intergovernmental” part of IPCC?
Here is the State Department’s Mission Statement:
“Shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.”
Addressing the consequences of a problem that the vast majority of the world’s scientists and scientific bodies agree is happening, and will get worse, clearly falls under this purview. Frankly, it would be irresponsible if the State Department *weren’t* studying the issue.


Others have said the same, but I firmly believe that because the IPCC is not responsible to, or representative of governments, it is close to impossible to regulate efficiently.
It is structured and based on an idea that science, and ultimately human organisations, are self-regulating. Like those who think the market is entirely self-regulating, this can be shown to be false.
Human nature is not the gentle, dispassionate, objective thing that some believe it is, especially in a group context; it is HIGHLY susceptible to bias and ideology. One could almost say we have evolved and are pre-disposed to be that way, to tend towards a group mentality can be advantageous for such groups in a survivial context, i.e. the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
All social organisations tend towards extremism in the absence of external regulation and checks. For example: individuals within social organisations who are more extreme tend to get promoted for internal social/political reasons, not scientific ones. The UN finds it hard to recognise these basic ideas, but unless it can get its act together in terms of regulation of its own bias, agendas, and excesses, it will ultimately be its own undoing. Even the academics are beginning to notice, who are usually the last to recognise intellectual politicial expediency.
Note, it was from academia that we got both communist ideology, and social darwinism, the two great disasters of the 20th century.


The “Long March Through the Institutions” (“Der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen“) keeps marching along.
Clintonistas marching through the institutions for the last two decades are retiring comfortably, pleased with their replacement by the 0bamaist horde and its czars and its Dear Leader.
The next president is unlikely to seriously reduce leftist control of State, Defense, Justice, Education, Commerce, Interior, Labor, HHS, HUD, Energy, EPA. Bush did nothing. ‘New tone’ don’t you know.
Only congressional defunding of leftist-controlled agencies will make a difference.

The basic fact is that parasitizing established government agencies for the purpose of sucking funding out of them to support the UN Green Agenda is rampant. The key words to watch for are “Sustainable Development”. Sounds nice and warm and fuzzy, but really means “Stop development and make the economy unsustainable”. IF you see it in a grant or funding from a government Agency, it has been parasitized…
So far I’ve found loads of it in DOE, NASA, and NSF (along with others). The quantity is staggering. The UN (at their web site) says they expect to get $600 Billion per year. Most of that to come from the USA and EU (as we are the ‘developed’ countries).
Note this link is a UN Site:

33.18. The secretariat of the Conference has estimated the average annual costs (1993-2000) of implementing in developing countries the activities in Agenda 21 to be over $600 billion, including about $125 billion on grant or concessional terms from the international community. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude estimates only, and have not been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs will depend upon, the specific strategies and programmes Governments decide upon for implementation.

33.19. Developed countries and others in a position to do so should make initial financial commitments to give effect to the decisions of the Conference.
They should report on such plans and commitments to the United Nations General Assembly at its forty-seventh session, in

Further down we find that it is DIRECTLY related to “climate science”:

(d) Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;

So it’s very clear that it is a real thing, and is directly driving the whole “climate science” of “Global Warming” via money taken from the “developed countries”. They lay out the whole plan on the UN web site.
While wandering through the F.O.I.A.-2011 emails I ran into a set of them showing active support for the UN effort named “Agenda 21”. I had, prior, thought that “Agenda 21” was just “crazy talk”, but we have people actively working toward it’s goals.
Some further digging into that showed that there is a conscious effort to co-opt various government agencies and then “wash” funding through them. As a result, you have places like the National Science Foundation and NASA providing buckets of money that gets washed through NGOs to support the Agenda folks power grab.
All very clever, but very disturbing.
You can watch my transition from “that’s crazy talk” to What The??? As I started with the emails here:
So yes, de-fund the IPCC, but don’t forget the OTHER thousands of suckers in the flesh of government funding for all the other parts of the “Agenda”…

“Defund the IPCC Now”
Defund them first, then prosecute them under the RICO act.

King of Cool

Hear, hear!
Have you seen this video? It does not come from Russia, Iran or North Korea – it is from the democratic free west of Australia which sadly demonstrates the amount of spin, deceit and bare faced lies that some governments are prepared to use in the perpetuating the myth that taxing CO2 will save the world.

Perhaps Gillard should also have told her subjects this:
But don’t worry, just like the US government’s book cooks, you will find that the Australian Labor Party’s book cooks will ensure that “every single cent of carbon tax will go back to the taxpayer” and the billions of dollars to fund the IPCC slush fund will be hidden away in some obscure document on foreign aid.


Possibly OT, but maybe not.
It’s been clear for a couple of years that the only way the team and the rag tag army of NGO’s could carry on perpetuating the ‘big lie’ so brazenly, is if they had ‘top cover’
i.e. political protection
FOIA alluded to this, and so have some of the more astute commentators, this revelation adds strength to their argument

Adam Gallon

Look at the ROI the USA’s getting, a mere $19m to get how much back in “green” taxes?


Because the US dollar has been the currency of international trade the US has been able to print money and the cost of servicing debt has been apparently small – up until the GFC and subsequent debt crises wake up call for the whole world – which ironically, whilst engulfing the US in a debt problem, probably saved the US because there is now no acceptable alternative for the currency of international trade – everybody has the problem even the creditors who are hoping their holding assets not junk.
Ordinary people know they can’t live off the credit card indefinitely and bankruptcy simply spreads the economic pain to often innocent parties as well increasing the problem.
I say if the US can reduce expenditures without economic pain it must do so.
There is no downside to saving millions by not pouring them down the IPCC drainhole.
Go for it !

@Kay B. Day:
Interesting… they are acting in a manner that would subject them to RICO. All you need is to prove one criminal act and it’s RICO all the way. (A truly horrific law that lets folks be found guilty first, their property confiscated, and THEN they can try to prove they are innocent to get it back. The “Corrupt Organization” part that is the last two letters 😉
Hmm…. so 30% of $600,000,000,000 per year would be decent pay for young lawyer 😉
Would, say, calling funding for a party in Rio “research” count as a finding of fraud in the application for “research funding”….


So, the whole IPCC and UNFCCC is funded mainly by the US Government! Who would have guessed that?