Monckton challenges the IPCC – suggests fraud – and gets a response

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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tony the Bastard

Well done, your Lordship. The cat is officially amongst the pigeons. Let’s see them try to obfuscate/prevaricate/bluff/bullsh*t their way out of this 🙂


I agree – well done, Lord Monckton. It’s people like you, Anthony Watts and Christopher Booker who force Pachauri and the IPCC to realise that they are being watched by the people they despise and try to ignore, ie anybody who disagrees with them.

Jimmy Haigh.

This should be interesting.

John Blake

“He was coming ’round the bend doing ninety miles an hour when his whistle broke into a scream”– from the 19th Century American folk classic “Casey Jones”, who mounted his personal steam-whistle on each engine that he drove.
Let’s see how Railroad Bill Pachauri, Tata Industries’ glaciator-of-choice, deals with Outing by Brenchley. Let’s just say that Rajendra K. ain’t no Gunga Din.

“No doubt there will now be an internal enquiry to discover why he did not pass it on.”

Janice Moore


Bob, Missoula

Thank the lord.

Douglas Hanes

This reminds me of Qing-Bin Lu’s problems with correction of biased errors to state the truth.They can’t handle the truth!

Handmaidens to the oligarchy, the BBC has finally arrived at the NO Warm party….

Olaf Koenders

Nice. The world not only needs you, Lord Monckton, but another million at least. You have our full backing. First, they need to be held to account. Second – imprisonment. If only there were a way around Due Process..


Sometimes when things don’t work as they should someone has to stand up and make it work as it should. Thank you Lord Monckton (again).

Eugene WR Gallun

A man of intellect and a man of action. The world sees so few such
Eugene WR Gallun


You would think that the IPCC would give one of their expert reviewers the courtesy of a reply.
AR5 is going to be a brawl. I can’t wait.

Ben D.

Thank you Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, and God bless.

This is truly great, Lord Monckton, but can you get the prosecuting authorities of three nations looking into it anyway? The IPCC might claim to look into it and even claim to put it right, but it will be hidden in small print on the bottom of page 307 and won’t go into the summary.
Don’t let these fraudsters go. They shouldn’t get away with all they have already done.
Brilliant letter. You are a force to be reckoned with. Cheers to you. 🙂


Whatever would we do without you? THANK YOU!

Mark Bofill

Thank you for your efforts and your courage, Lord Monckton.


Not only did Pachauri allegedly not pass on Monckton’s report but we find I also note that Pachauri is a brazen LIAR.

Perhaps a typo’ “The planet is not “hotting” up” should be The planet is not heating up.


Small correction:
………..but I also note that Pachauri is a brazen LIAR………….


“He was goin’ down the grade makin’ 90 miles an hour
When his whistle broke into a scream”
Is from “The Wreck of the Old 97”
The recorded version by Vernon Dalhart in 1924 is considered the first one million seller country music hit song.
Check it out on Wikipedia.


Possible IPCC replies:
But if you filter out the decelerating, then it is still accelerating.
If you look at the period when temperature was going up, and compare this to the period when it wasn’t, in comparison it is accelerating.
We appreciate such contributions in making the acceleration more easily understood.
We fully expect the acceleration to resume, once the current pause in acceleration ends, in line with climate models.
The climate models successfully reproduce the acceleration in the past, so we expect they will successfully reproduce the acceleration in the future.
The fact that temperature increases are decelerating is projected to be temporary. Overall climate change is still occurring and we must make every possible measure to combat it. The sooner we act, the less the acceleration will be in the future.
Other factors not previously known such as aerosols are causing the deceleration, but the underlying acceleration is still there.
You get my drift. It will likely be a whitewash.


You may not have to rely on the police to investigate and lay a charge. In the jurisdiction where I live, one may swear an information before a magistrate.


Is there any police department, or law enforcement agency, that is even in a position to deal with this? It’s the freaking UN – something that by its very nature is a hive of scum and villainy, that institutionalizes mass rape, that is doing its level best to keep the wealthy wealthy and further impoverish the third world.
Why is the media not DOING ITS JOB…. and the media’s job is to keep the public informed, not what they’re currently doing which is to glorify socialist and communist ideals while mocking and marginalizing honesty and anything remotely off to the right.


What is a railway man doing as head of the IPCC? Just joking. 😉
Has Pachauri apologized to the the former Deputy Director-General of the Geological Survey of India after wrongly accusing him of being involved in voodoo science over Pachauri’s fairytale of Himalayan total meltdown by 2035? Pachauri is a disgrace along with the other great hypocrite, Al Gore, who is a world renowned fiction writer who was taken to court and found to have made several things up.

Jim Brock

The song was based on a real event. My grandfather, a railroad man, knew Casey Jones. A long time ago…I am 82, and am referring to my own grandfather.
re: Zek202

Glen Livingston

So Pachauri is really feeling the heat now! Good job Lord Monckton!!

I do not expect the IPCC to roll over and expose its scurvy belly to us any time soon.They will drown it will babble and hope to wear us out with their paperwork and time.


Werner Brozek

There has been no warming for 17 years on any measure, as the IPCC’s climate-science chairman now admits.
This matter regarding the 17 years was the case earlier, however the situation with GISS, which used to have no statistically significant warming for 17 years, has now been changed with new data. GISS now has over 18 years of no statistically significant warming. As a result, we can now say the following: On six different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 18 and 23 years.
The details are below and are based on the SkS site:
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.094 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.094 +/- 0.109 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.089 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
If you want to know the times to the nearest month that the warming is not significant for each set to their latest update, they are as follows:
RSS since August 1989;
UAH since June 1993;
Hadcrut3 since August 1993;
Hadcrut4 since July 1994;
GISS since October 1994 and
NOAA since July 1994.
(By the way, RSS shows a slightly negative slope since December 1996 or 16 years and 5 months through to April 2013.)

Aussie Luke of Australiastan

Christopher Monckton – you da man!


[snip – Joel – we are not going to have you derail yet another conversation with an off-topic rant about an unrelated metric. Save for an appropriate thread – Anthony]


Wow! Wow! Wow! Lord Monckton rocks! Someone finally stopped whining and did something with those scum sucking frauds! Thank YOU, SIr!


[snip – Joel – we are not going to have you derail yet another conversation with an off-topic rant about an unrelated metric. Save for an appropriate thread – Anthony]

Mike jarosz

[snip – pointless- mod]


Not one to ‘rain on a parade’ but … Bureaucracy and Legalities work in strange ways. Refer to the 2nd Founding Principal of the IPCC !
For the IPCC and allies the AGW is a fact.
The ‘role’ of the IPCC is to determine a number !
What is the ratio of humans (committing AGW crime) to natural variation ?
That ratio will specify the number of humans to be culled in order to achieve ‘balance.’
Global genocide.
That is the motive of the UN and the IPCC is the erred boy messenger.

It’s nice to see somebody get serious about charging these fr**ds with fr**d.

William Astley

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Thank-you for your due diligence in finding the error and your persistent in forcing what does appear (as the gross error was fundamental and was not addressed) to be a blatant attempt to commit a fraudulent act to be addressed.
Heaven help us if we did not have the many ‘skeptics’, blog contributors, and blogs to help protect the public’s interest in the ‘climate wars’.
You are a scholar and a gentleman.
Best wishes,

William McClenney

Many may not understand the true science behind global warming. Al Gore actually got this right, but in a way, I think, few properly appreciate.
Beginning with his initial associations with climate science (from someone who later retracted their CO2 beliefs to a large degree) former VP Gore “got it” and I think we all owe him the credit that he is truly due. He is actually responsible for the evolution of the algorithm into what today is the ALGOREithm.
The ALGOREithm represents a revolutionary leap forward in the calculus of polemics. Prior to the invention of the ALGOREithm, subterfuge and skullduggery were often found to be fraudulent and socially unacceptable as a result (citing recent rulings in SEC v Madoff, US Department of Labor v Enron etc.). However, in the late 1990’s Dr. Michael Mann expanded on this revolutionary new concept with the elevation of the field of mathematics to the next level, now recognized as matheMANNics.
MatheMANNics afforded a unique and previously unknown means of quantitatively integrating indeterminate quantities, ambiguous social constructs, tunneling low energy IQ neurons, lost and deleted data, fashionable mixing/matching of incompatible data, pretzel peer reviewing, plausible/reversible deniability and single variable gaseous processing, with the constants of misprision and fraud, that when matheMANNicly factored into an ALGOREithm results in a complete and natural replacement for rational thought.
The remarkable thing about ALGOREithms and matheMANNics is that they are seemingly difficult to deny even when disproved! Which means, of course, that instead of theory we now have a new paradigm which might righteously be christened a “Pachauri”.


Werner Brozek says: “…For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990….”
Werner, is some adjustment necessary to the significance test because of autocorrelation in the dataset?


[snip. Ad homs like that are not welcome here. — mod.]

Great post that gives me hope!
By the way, straight from the IPCC, their state role:
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
For certain, they can not have an outcome that suggests there is no AGW.
But they’re absolutely dishonest about dealing objectively, especially in light of the fact that they can NOT be objective given their role.

Leonard Lane

Lord Monckton:
Thank you very much for your courage, persistence, and scientific knowledge and efforts to back them up. Few, if any, are doing as much for truth in this vital issue determining the degree of human misery and death that the fraudulent claims of accelerating global warming are causing worldwide.
You are not only a scholar and scientist but a humanitarian as well. Thank you Sir!

Ed, 'Mr.' Jones

Christopher, I hope you are not in any way vulnerable to depredation by the U.S. Internal Revenue Gestapo.

Gail Combs

Thank You

TheInquirer, which part of the statement “there has been no rise in global temperature for 18 years” do you not understand?
Lord Monckton; thank you for all your efforts, you are a credit to science and mankind!


From Day 1, the modelling was based on fake science. Read it here: 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
‘Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher, colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the so called greenhouse mechanism’
This was either a very clever deception or a bad mistake. Apart from two minor bands at ~10 µm, there is very little CO2 absorption in the 8-14 µm ‘atmospheric window’. There is absorption at 7 µm and 15 µm. The latter is the major IR absorption band.
Therefore the argument that CO2 blocks the aw was wrong but using it they claimed the World was going to heat dramatically and flood. None of these events have happened.
I suspect they made a mistake in the science then went public, got fame and backing from the carbon traders including Al Gore and Ken Lay of Enron. When better minds identified the errors, ‘the team’ apparently set out to construct a web of deceit to cover up the initial mistake. The latest missive is here: PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Pierrehumbert is clearly a good physicist but uses weasel words to imply the ~15 µm ‘OLR bite’ blocks the whole emission spectrum. It does not yet the IPCC has now switched to this argument. This is bogus because it’s easy to show how it bypassed. There are many other errors in the physics.
PS even if there were surface IR emission > 23 W/m^2 [they exaggerate this 6.85x], it could not be thermalised directly.

Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, I thank you! You are truly a great man, gentleman and scholar meriting a ranking with Great Britain’s finest scientists and statesmen of history.
I do have a curious question or two; You’ve copied the question/complaint to “Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia”, did you intend sending a copy to the Attorney General of the state of Virginia, rather than the United States Federal Attorney General?
The United States Attorney General may be contacted at;

“… By Mail
Correspondence to the Department
, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

E-mails to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent to . E-mails will be forwarded to the responsible Department of Justice component for appropriate handling…

I do agree that the Virginia Attorney General, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, offers a far better chance of serious interest, but I’m not sure he has jurisdiction; unless fraud can be connected to some perpetrator in Virginia, say at the University of Virginia.

Jason Calley

@ TheInquirer “There are measures that evidence an increasing rate of warming, including arctic ice loss, sea level rise and ocean temperatures among others.”
Rather than say that you are lying, let me say instead that perhaps I am confused. Perhaps you can educate me. It is my understanding that when it comes to estimating global temperatures, the best method, the most accurate method, the method with the smallest error bars, is to measure temperatures with globally distributed thermometers. Granted, there are other methods for estimating temperature. You mention arctic ice loss, sea level rise and ocean temperatures — all of which have error bars that are certainly larger than Monckton’s cited data sets. Consider this analogy. Monckton says “Jason Calley is bankrupt. I have examined his bank accounts, income, and debts. Standard accounting procedures show that he is broke!” TheInquirer responds, “No, Jason can’t be bankrupt. He is wearing expensive shoes and a nice suit!”


Well done Monckton!
Now look out for a change in IPCC’s vocabulary – ‘anthropogenic global warming’ became ‘climate change’, I guess the next step will include ‘transient vacillation in the long term trend’ or something?
Did mention of the police bring them to their senses? I wonder why there have been no prosecutions?