The IPCC fraud case (but not the planet) hots up
Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Two weeks ago I reported the central error in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007) to its secretariat. After the contributing scientists had submitted their final draft report, the bureaucrats and politicians had tampered with the HadCRUt3 graph of global instrumental temperatures since 1850 by adding four trend-lines to the anomaly curve and drawing from their relative slopes the unjustifiable and statistically indefensible conclusion, stated twice in the published report, that global warming was “accelerating” and that the “acceleration” was our fault.
Global warming is not accelerating. The planet is not hotting up. There has been no warming for 17 years on any measure, as the IPCC’s climate-science chairman now admits. That includes the Hadley/CRU data. There has been no warming for 23 years according to RSS satellite dataset.
The IPCC’s central projection of warming since 2005 (bright red), taken from the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report, is visibly at odds with the linear-regression trend (bright blue) on the latest version (HadCRUt4) of the monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly curve (dark blue):
I received no reply to my report of the IPCC’s erroneous conclusion that global warming was “accelerating”. So today I wrote to the IPCC again:
“I am an expert reviewer for the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I wrote to you two weeks ago to report a serious error in the Fourth Assessment Report. I have had no reply. My letter of two weeks ago is attached, together with a copy of a letter I have sent to the Inter-Academy Council asking it to use its good offices to persuade you to reply. I have also sent a letter, for information only at this stage, to the police in Geneva, since it appears that a fraud may have been committed by the IPCC.”
In my letter to the police in Geneva, which I also copied to the Serious Fraud Office in London and the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I wrote:
“The attached correspondence evidences a fraud at the IPCC. Its secretariat has not responded to my report of an error in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). The error is serious. I can prove it is deliberate. It is designed to demonstrate by deception that the world is warming ever faster and that we are to blame. It is one of a series of ingenious, connected frauds that have profited a few at great expense to many.
“The frauds are wilful deceptions calculated to cause loss to taxpayers by tampering with scientific data and results so as to exaggerate the rate and supposed adverse consequences of global warming. Scientific debate is legitimate: subjective distortion of objective science for profit is not.
“This letter is for information. If after a further week the IPCC (to which I am copying this letter) fails to acknowledge my report of its error as its own procedures require, I shall invite you to investigate this and other connected frauds, which involve larger sums than any previous fraud.”
The IPCC has not delayed in replying this time:
“We acknowledge receipt of your message copied below and of your letter dated 4 May 2013, received earlier today as an attachment to that message. Your email with attachments of today is the first communication received at the IPCC Secretariat from you on this matter.
“We would like to inform you that the error claim that you have submitted is now being taken care of as per the IPCC Protocol for Addressing Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports, available on the IPCC website. Steps 1 and 2 of the protocol are now completed; the IPCC Working Group I will deal with next steps as appropriate. As per the protocol, the IPCC Secretariat will inform you of the conclusions of the process.”
I have thanked the IPCC for passing on my report of its error in the Fourth Assessment Report and have told the police the IPCC have now replied. It is clear from the IPCC Secretariat’s reply that Dr. Pachauri, to whom I had reported the error in writing and in person as long ago as 2009, had not passed my report of the error to the Secretariat as he should have done. No doubt there will now be an internal enquiry to discover why he did not pass it on.
When the error has been investigated and the IPCC has reported back to me, I shall let you – and the prosecuting authorities of three nations – know the outcome.