Is it time to prosecute the IPCC for fraud?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The IPCC, having spent almost two months working out how to respond to my complaint about a notoriously bogus graph in its Fourth Assessment Report, has found itself not guilty. In doing so, it is wilfully perpetuating a fraud, which will now be reported to the prosecuting authorities.

My complaint was as follows:

“The graph purports to show, but does not show, that the rate of global warming has been accelerating and that the accelerated global warming is anthropogenic.”


The conclusion the IPCC draws by superimposing multiple trend-lines on the HadCRUt curve of global mean surface temperature anomalies since 1850 is that because the trend-lines starting more recently are steepest the world is warming ever faster and we are to blame. The caption to the graph makes this clear:

“Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accel­erated warming. … increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s …”.

Dr. Pachauri, the IPCC’s climate-science chairman, drew the same two bogus conclusions from this graph in a lecture in New South Wales some years ago:

“… In recent years this graph has become much steeper. If you draw a line through the last 100 years, the slope is a 0.74 C° line. But if you look at the last 50 years, [it is] almost twice as steep as the total 100-year period. So it would be appropriate to conclude that … warming is taking place at a much faster rate, and clearly if we don’t bring about some changes we’d have much faster changes in future.”

I had invited the IPCC to reconsider its use of a technique so bogus that if one applies multiple trend-lines to a sine-wave (which has a zero trend) one can demonstrate either that the trend is ever more rapidly declining or that it is ever more rapidly increasing.

In fact, the global temperature trend is not increasing. In the 101 months since January 2005, the benchmark date for the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), there has been no global warming.

The bright blue trend-line on the HadCRUt dataset shows cooling. Yet the bright red line showing the AR5 projections suggests that a rapid warming should be taking place. In little more than eight years the IPCC’s projection is already more than a quarter of a Celsius degree (or half a Fahrenheit degree) above observed reality:


The IPCC knows perfectly well that the two conclusions it invited readers to draw in the caption from the slopes of the multiple trend-lines in the graph are indefensible, misleading, and – let us not mince words – fraudulent. It avoids admitting its error by breaking down my complaint into five parts, of which only the first two go to the substance of my complaint. And, even with these two, the IPCC carefully avoids addressing the substance of my complaint:

1. M of B complaint: the graph “purports to show that the rate of global warming has been accelerating”.

IPCC response: “The indicated trends on the two figures are factually correct. They are correctly determined and clearly indicated on the legend accompanying these figures. … Therefore, the claim is not warranted.”

But I had not complained that the trend-lines had been incorrectly determined. Indeed, I had demonstrated that correctly-calculated trend-lines applied to a sine-wave could produce false conclusions very similar to that of the IPCC. The inaccuracy about which I had complained lay in the drawing of improper conclusions from the trend-lines.

2. M of B: the graph “purports to show that the accelerated global warming is anthropogenic”.

IPCC: “The figures were not used to make a statement on the causes of a possible increase in trend. … Detection and attribution assessments are based on a comprehensive evaluation of detection and attribution research that is presented in AR4 Chapter 9. That chapter’s assessments are not based on evidence of differences in linear trends between different periods. Therefore, the claim is not warranted.”

But the IPCC’s caption plainly attributes the rapid warming from the 1970s onward to Man. So the graphs were used, and explicitly used, “to make a statement on the causes of a possible increase in trend”. Besides, if Chapter 9 had already reached its assessment by other means, what was the purpose of the bogus graph, except to mislead?

3. M of B (subsidiary point): I had understood that the graph was and altered version of what had appeared in the scientists final draft.

IPCC: “The figures in question appeared in the Final Drafts of Chapter 3 and of the Technical Summary with the same numbering as in the published versions. The trends, including the detailed legend with the numerical values and the uncertainties were included in the Final Draft as in the published version, except for copy-editing changes. Trends were added in the Final Draft versions of these figures in response to comments on the Second Order Draft … Therefore, the claim is not warranted.”

Score half a point for the IPCC here. The graph with the bogus trend-lines had appeared in the final draft. However, it had appeared without the trend-lines in all versions that preceded the final draft. Someone had added the trend-lines, but should not have done so.

4. M of B (subsidiary point): The text accompanying the defective graph says: “An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years, …”.

IPCC: From the context it is clear that the authors emphasize that the global mean is not the complete picture (“ … with important regional variations”) and that trends are not smooth (“… has occurred in two phases …”, and “… more strongly from the 1970s …”), and that all these statements are factually correct and discuss in words what is visible in the graph. “Therefore, the claim is not warranted.”

But my complaint is not about what may have been said elsewhere in the report, nor about whether what was said elsewhere in the report was factually correct. It is about the bogus graph, whose accompanying text must be read first and foremost in the context of the graph that it accompanies. The fact that “the global mean is not the complete picture” has nothing whatever to do with whether or not it is appropriate to draw inaccurate conclusions from the relative slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines.

5. M of B (subsidiary point): the text accompanying the graph says, “The rate of warming averaged over the last 50 years (0.13°C ± 0.03°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.”

IPCC: The quoted words “are factually correct. Therefore the claim is not warranted. In conclusion, the Co-Chairs of WGI and the WGI Bureau find that no action is warranted in response to this claim.”

But I had nowhere asserted that the quoted words were not factually correct. I had stated that it was not appropriate for the IPCC to draw from the relative slopes of the various trend lines the unjustifiable conclusion that the rate of global warming was accelerating and that we were to blame.

It would not be difficult to persuade a jury that the IPCC’s assertion that various data were “factually correct”, when I had at no point challenged the factual correctness, merely the inappropriate conclusions that had been drawn, was evidence of its continuing attempt to mislead the public.

I have shown the bogus graph to hundreds of audiences all around the world. Recently I have been asking them to imagine that they were a fraud jury. All have voted to convict – and, on almost every occasion, the votes have been unanimous.

The difficulty, though, is that the IPCC, as one of a proliferating number of supranational agencies, is not answerable to any jurisdiction, except possibly that of Switzerland, where it is headquartered.

If the IPCC were answerable to the British courts, I should invite the police to prosecute and then, if they did not act, I should go before the magistrates myself. I have done it before. If the case is sound, a summons will be issued against the accused. I once hauled the British Secret Police (delicately called the “Crime Agency”) before the beaks, got a summons, and forced these thugs into a humiliating climbdown. But that is another story.

The Swiss authorities have established a specialist bureau to investigate frauds, the Bureau de l’Escroquerie. Its expertise is considerable, and it is well used to dealing with frauds a great deal more complex than those of the IPCC.

Whether the Swiss authorities will act on my complaint to them remains to be seen. Don’t hold your breath. However, now that the IPCC knows that a formal complaint has been submitted, it had better tread more carefully. If the Swiss police were to receive multiple complaints about different aspects of the IPCC’s misconduct – the Himalayan glaciers affair, for instance – they would not be able to look the other way indefinitely.

So, if the IPCC wishes to survive (and, frankly, it has had its day), it will have to be a great deal more careful in future to comply with the scientific method – and with the criminal law.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steve T

Brilliant, keep up the pressure.
Steve T

I assume IPCC will update in their next report the first graph with the obvious missing slope of the last 12.5 years?

We need to keep exposing every aspect of this fraud until the obvious inaction against it is making a mockery of law and justice that all can see.


Play on, you clown!

It is unfortunate that IPCC headquarters are not located in Italy, where seismologists were prosecuted and found guilty of manslaughter for not predicting of L’Aquila earthquake.

Joe Public

Mankind will thank you.

Rob Dawg

Demanding that other nations change their cultures and behaviors under threat of violence and wrath of God. There’s a word for that.

Bruce Cobb

For a possible venue, perhaps Nuremberg would do.

I get just a bit lost. Is Climate Change on a sine curve?
Surely you are not saying that.


That’s what I like to see.
A bit of MoB justice!

R. de Haan

Secrets and Lies
by Golem XIV on JUNE 27, 2013 in LATEST
Every credit has its debit, every positive its negative. So for every secret there must be a lie, and every lie must be kept secret.
This is the currency of power today. Fiat truth.
We are not allowed to have any secrets any more. And yet those who insist they must know the truth about us, who spy upon us to extract our secrets, tell us. in return, only lies.
It is a dangerous, corroding imbalance of power, because lies, like debts, compound.
Living the lie
We all know the famous Goebbels quote,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
From Sadam’s weapons of mass destruction and missiles that could hit us in just 40 minutes of sexed up bullshit, to the stress tests that show us every bank is perfectly solvent and however many billions they launder they are never guilty and no one goes to goal because they are too big to fail and too connected to even question.
The eye of providence looks out and approves of what is done – Annuit cœptis.
But who does the all seeing eye, that sits atop the pyramid of power on the mighty dollar bill, work for now? Is it really you and me? That is what we are told to believe. But is it true? I think there are too many secrets but few of them are yours and mine.
The private dealings of the ordinary citizen are considered suspect and must, we are told, be rooted out. The secrets and outright lies of the corporate and governmental worlds, however – they are confidential. They are protected – behind razor-wire threats of legal action and closed door tribunals of hand picked experts.
A few weeks ago I sat and listened to the former leader of the Conservative party, now an elder statesman of British politics, Michael Howard, tell an audience that governments need to lie. He is a clever man. He quoted Goebbels and then gave this carefully chosen example.
Imagine, he said, that a Chancellor knew that he was going to have to devalue the currency. The evening before the appointed hour, he is asked by a journalist if he is going to devalue. If he tells the truth and says yes, there will be a run on the currency and great damage will be done. So he lies. “No”, he says, “I have absolutely no plans to devalue at all.” And then next morning he devalues as he had planned.
“Was this not”, Mr Howard asked, “the right thing, the only thing to do?” And all agreed it was. The unspoken lesson that everyone seemed to accept was stability is more important than the truth.
I find this a very frightening notion.
But Mr Howard presented his lie well. He went on to quote the next, less well known line from the Goebbels quote.
The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
And this, he said smiling at us, is what protects you. The chancellor’s lie only needed to last a few hours. The nation only lived inside his lie overnight.
But now think of the lies we have been told since 2008. Our banking system and the banks in it, we were told, were basically sound just suffering from a shortage of liquidity. And yet, in reality, it was not a problem of liquidity, it was insolvency.
The liquidity lie had to be rolled over and the interest on it, paid. So another lie, that bank assets were not worthless just ‘impaired’, had to be told and maintained. And to do that the truth had to be hidden, off balance sheet, in mark to model and offshore.
Our governments have spent trillions maintaining their lies and have forced us to live those lies for five years now. But there are costs. Living a lie is morally and politically corrosive, not to mention expensive. Just this week, as reported in the FT, the Italian Treasury ‘uncovered’ a nest of lies. It appears that the Italian government, in the run up to joining the euro, paid at least one of the big banks to help it hide the true extent of its debts by agreeing derivative swaps. Greece used similar swaps to massage its debts. The now infamous Titlos agreement with Goldman Sachs being the best known.
The Italian agreements – there were several amounting to around €36 billion in value – would have been known to Mario Draghi who was at the time of some of the agreements at least (1998-9) Secretary of the Treasury. Shortly after this (2002) he left the government and joined Goldman.
It now turns out the terms of the agreements were such that the Italian tax payer could face billions in losses. Of course those who will be forced to pay, were never consulted, not even told of the agreements. They were …confidential of course. Commercially sensitive and politically secret – so often bedfellows aren’t they? Kept secret from those who would be required to pay the bill when it came due.
Our leaders, our liars, haven’t bothered to protect us from the consequences of the lies at all. Too expensive. So austerity, disparity and stagnation are everywhere around us. Forced on us by those who suffer none of them, insulated as they are by wealth and power and privilege. Consequences are for little people, not their Betters.
Our ‘Betters’ have found Goebbels was wrong. You don’t have to protect the people from the consequences of the lies you tell them, as long as you can blame those consequences on someone else. On unforeseen global economic forces, on conniving foreigners who devalue their currency, or terrorists or whistleblowers. Or even the people themselves for taking on debts they couldn’t afford or on ‘necessity’ and ‘precedent’ – the bond holders cannot be made to pay – it goes against international precedent.
We, the people, need to strike back at the secret deals done between the elites of the political and financial revolving door, and make it clear that we will not pay for anything about which we were not told.
Once the cry was, “No taxation without representation”. Today the cry must be, “No debt without consultation.”
Suppressing the Truth
What Mr Howard did not quote is the next line from Goebbels.
It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
But again Goebbels has been superceded. Repression is so last century. Why repress when you can simply drown it out. All it takes is for the media outlets to be owned by a few powerful and like- minded friends. A few media moguls and corporate giants, whose plastic pundits raise their voices while the dolly bird presenters flash their thighs. It’s all so full throttle and frantic, and charged with desire and greed.
Anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist. Anyone who breaks ranks is a whistleblower and whistleblowers are domestic terrorists, dysfunctional loners with personality problems and axes to grind.
When the truth is vilified, hunted, gagged and goaled, then the State has chosen to go to war with the nation.
We are at war.

stan stendera

MiLord, Thank you, thank you, thank you. The time is running out on the global warming fools. Every day that passes makes it one day sooner to when you, Anthony, JoNova, and Bishop Hill are recognized as the heroes you are.

Gene Selkov

Absolutely brilliant, but what gave me a chuckle was the recollection of a rather recent suggestion by one Lord Monckton of Brenchley that we should not be driving the crooks into a corner. Instead, we were advised to do everything possible to help them discover the error of their ways, and to modestly turn away while they are busy saving face.
The idea of prosecution can’t possibly come from the same Lord Monckton, can it?

[snip – usual off-topic hater stuff – mod]

Let’s put the question slightly differently.
We’re at the top of a sine curve, about to head down.
Not a perfect curve…could be true.

I suggest getting copies of the books from the 90s published in the UK as part of the Global Environmental Change Series. They are quite graphic that the science being used is in fact sociology with a hope of restructuring all aspects of society.
To quote GECS “emphasizes the way human aspirations, choices and everyday behaviour influences changes in the global environment. In the aftermath of UNCED and Agenda 21, this series helps crystallize the contribution of social science thinking to global change.”
The IPCC is just the old “nothing as practical as a good [social science] theory.” In the case of the IPCC, it gains global redistribution, political power, and lots of insider sweet crony contracts. The book Social Theory and the Global Environment even concedes that Limits to Growth would have required central planning of the economy, but that was not the aspect focused on. No people treated it as flawed physical science, not as aspirational social science.
That’s still the point but Sustainability sounds better. The UN really does want to treat us all as 21st century serfs. With beliefs and attitudes and values they plan to dictate until we all believe in a common good purpose that Mao would have envied.


Comparing the short-term trend that concides with the warming phase of the multidecadal oscillation to the long-term trends that smoothes out the multidecadal oscillation is comparing apples to oranges. Therefore, the conclusion derived from such comparison is flowed. The proper method is to compare the warming rates for equal trend period of say 5-years for the last 100 years. This result after detrending clearly shows the multidecdal oscillation as shown:

Gunga Din

Why are democracies and democratic republics subjecting themselves to will of other primarily totalitarian governments?
History has many examples of science being twisted to promote a political agenda.
Whether the IPCC is prosecuted or not, the authority given them via the UN should be revoked and/or ignored by free nations. (And their cash cut off.)

Lord Galleywood

But you all must think of the cheeeldren < Yep, free Duffle coats all round to combat warbal gloaming – Simples really 🙂

Gunga Din

PS I don’t mean to “derail” the post. I’ll refrain from rebuttals to comments outside the context of the post.


I wonder what period they’re smoothing over. It seems to be deliberately selected to hide the cooling over the last number of years. It looks like it ends about 2007. It looks to me like the smoothing itself may be bogus.
The thing that stands out even with their doctored graph is that the slope from 1910 to 1940 is the same as what they purport to be the current trend.

It’s a condition of joining the UN that employees of the UN and its agencies are exempt from all of a country’s laws. The UN itself has no laws. Thus fraud (and everything else we consider a crime) is perfectly legal if you are a United Nations employee.


The sine curve was just an ad absurdem example to show how you can mislead! No one is suggesting a sine wave pattern in the climate.

Christopher: Best wishes for your pursuit of the IPCC.


I don’t think there’s any court in the Western World that would hold them responsible. They serve the interest of the state.


“… In recent years this graph has become much steeper. If you draw a line through the last 100 years, the slope is a 0.74 C° line. But if you look at the last 50 years, [it is] almost twice as steep as the total 100-year period. So it would be appropriate to conclude that … warming is taking place at a much faster rate, and clearly if we don’t bring about some changes we’d have much faster changes in future.”

What drove most of the warming up to 2003? Carbon dioxide? Let’s ask Dr. James Hansen, formerly of NASA and see what his take was on the matter.

James Hansen et. al. – PNAS – 4 November 2003
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost……
James Hansen et. al. – PNAS – August 15, 2000
Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade……

The past 10 years has been flat. What should I conclude, based on the findings of Dr. James Hansen, about co2 causing most of the ‘warming‘ since 2003 and before 2003?

As the science was settled, the world of climate stopped in the year 2000.

John G. Thompson

So, if we wanted to start a ground swell of complaints about fraud to the Swiss fraud unit, where would we send it and what kind of language and charges would we use? A boilerplate with pointers would be extremely useful for people to take and rewrite to their style of writing and send.
Would we send via email, or would a hardcopy with postage be better?

Berényi Péter

During the last 4 decades HadCRUT shows a deceleration of -3.7 K/cy². That’s a fact.

Beta Blocker

Dr. Fred Singer has said that in his opinion, the earth will continue to warm for another 200 to 300 years until a temperature matching that which existed at the height of the Medievel Warm Period has been reached.
This means that the IPCC will be in business for a long time to come; and unless there is a statistically significant decline in GMT which lasts continuously for a period of fifty years or more, the AGW alarmists will still be pushing their agenda a hundred years from now.


If Australia can take Japan to the International Court of Justice over the scientific killing of whales
then surely the same case can be demonstrated for the fraud of AGW………

Olaf Koenders

It’s long been time for their prosecution Christopher. It’s blatant fraud. The fact they already use a graph of “upwardly adjusted” temps and then draw their scare-lines on it, is obviously misleading.
Besides, when the chart is normalised to show whole degrees – something we can actually feel – rather than inane fractions, it becomes a straight line:
They MUST be prosecuted, since some families have been reported as committing suicide due to the “scare”. The IPCC and their cohorts, the infamous CRU and all connected, are fully responsible for this fraud as evidenced in the Climategate emails.
Punishment should include taking them to a desert on a clear night, where their precious CO2 won’t stop IR leaving Earth and they’ll likely learn the error of their ways.


It is stunning that the IPCC is trying to get away with this. Do they not see that the increase from 1910 to 1940ish was steeper than the current one? And yes, the sine wave example is perfect. But I’ve read the IPCC reports, and had already concluded they are more like comic books than any scientific text. They explain nothing in depth, and they are filled with misleading sciency-speak crap. For example, the terms used to describe what are, I guess, confidence intervals about certain conclusions: Very likely, extremely likely, super-duper-whooper likely? I mean, come on.

Redress, no country can take the UN to the ICJ. The UN can refer itself to the ICJ, but my understanding is that any ruling by the ICJ is just advisory and not binding.
Anyway, there is zero chance of the UN referring the IPCC to the ICJ.
It’s remarkable how few people understand the complete legal immunity enjoyed by the UN and its agencies.

Mac the Knife

Is it time to prosecute the IPCC for fraud?


@Philip Bradley: You’re right, the IPCC per se is almost certainly immune (and even if it were not, the people at the UN who would have to prosecute them are foxes guarding the henhouse).
But many of the individuals who wrote the report, and the sponsors who keep them going with grant money, are in the US and/or UK and can and should be open to prosecution or lawsuit for fraud. Perhaps a class action suit on behalf of the taxpayers is the way to go. Let’s see how far Mickey Mann and his friends can drag out a case when they’re paying for it out of pocket.

Mk Urbo

Yes, it is time to prosecute “green” agenda fraud – otherwise it will never stop…

R. Shearer

It depends on what the definition of “is” is.


My iinterpretation of the IPCC graph is that the trend lines are correct, but merely suffer from the old assumption of future trends following existing trends, like any stockmarket trader following a rising price- the ‘trend following’ mistake, or for that matter, the housing bubble and inappropriate lending in the US which led to the GFC (along with financial derivitives). Assuming trends will continue is a very common mistake for humans to make.
But if the trend lines are actually correct, if might be very difficult to get any real traction in court about what conclusions one draws, i.e. whether these conclusions are fraudulent or not. You could say the same about the GFC and bad loans based on trends, its sloppy, irresponsible, self-serving, inappropriate, but not factually incorrect at the time.
I’m sure that is what the IPCC would say, the graph is ultimately separate from any conclusions drawn, even in a caption. Irresponsible, but not ‘incorrect’ or ‘fraudulent’.

The Swiss won’t prosecute- as long as the government gets its cut- nothing happens- They financed the Second War – its a war crime and no one has ever been prosecuted. Their banks were only prosecuted for their tax haven dodgy dealings due to outside pressure.


MoB, first, you must make the complaint to the Kantonal Rectanwalt (Prosecutor) of the Kanton where the IPCC hauptsitz is, which can be disambiguated through the HandelsRegister.
Remember D, F, I but not EN are official languages of Switzerland, and the complaint can be drafted in any of them, whatever the Kanton. Consider getting Swiss Legal advice possibly from a sympathetic Professor in Basle, You may also have to have a Swiss national to have standing in Swiss Courts. The Rechter will advise.
Viel grüss, und ‘keep up the good work’ aus Züri, omb


I strongly resent the unsubstantiated lies you ‘Cloa….’ make of me and my country. These slurs are the result of the lies of a self hating American Jew, Henry Morgenthal in 1947. Swiss Banking law dated from 1934 before Hitler had risen in Deutschland.
Switzerland was not invaded because the NAZIs knew we would fight to the last man, woman and child and because all the tunnels to France and Italy would be blown. In addition General Grussian provided safe haven for MI6, Allan Dulles of the OSS and prevented Hitler from re-inforcing Italy.
So take your slurs and shove them up your ignorant rectum!

William Astley

The darn solar magnetic cycle changes have started to bring cold and wet weather and crop failures. …. ….The warmists are still trying to prop up their disproved, dead, not on life support AGW warming hypothesis. Guys (John Cook, Grant Foster, Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, lead IPCC authors and so on.) give it up, you guys have lost. The climate change problem is cold wet weather and crop failure. What do you suggest we should do to address cold climate change? Based on what has happened before the solar magnetic cycle deep minimum (Solar cycle 24 is the weakest solar magnetic cycle in 150 years, based on what has happened before solar cycle 24 will be will be followed by 100 to 150 years of very, very weak solar magnetic cycles) will bring cold, wet weather for roughly 100 to 150 years. Any suggestions? Come on guys think out of the box!!!
The wettest autumn since records began, followed by the coldest spring in 50 years, has devastated British wheat, forcing food manufacturers to import nearly 2.5m tonnes of the crop. … ….Britain is usually the EU’s third biggest wheat grower but it will be a net importer for the first time in 11 years. “Our poll is a snapshot but it is extremely worrying. If this plays out nationally, we will be below average production for the second year in a row,” said NFU crops chair Andrew Watts. “If the experts are to be believed and extreme weather is to become more frequent, we must look at ways of supporting the industry.” … ….The diminished wheat harvest will add to growing concerns about the amount of food that British farmers can grow per hectare. According to a new analysis by the development board, UK wheat and oilseed rape yields have barely improved since the 1980s, despite genetic developments and better fertilisers. No one reason is given but severe and fluctuating weather is thought to have played a part.
‘Typical British weather’: Rain, cold and high winds set to return, as UK summer fizzles out
Britain’s brief period of fine weather is over, as forecasters predict unsettled, wet and windy conditions for at least the next four weeks. … ….
According to Météo France, the national weather agency, the heavy rain that kept most people trapped in doors over last weekend’s Pentecost holiday is to continue until the end of the month, meaning that Spring 2013 is set to be one of the coldest in the last 20 years.
According to Météo France, temperatures in northern France for the first half of May 2013 were two degrees below average temperatures recorded for this time of year.
Italy shivers through ‘cursed spring’ of relentless rain …. …..Italian springs are often strange, but this one will perhaps be remembered as particularly capricious. As with much of northern Europe, the country has shivered its way through a good deal of the year. In the north-west, according to the Italian meteorological society, residents have had the coldest May since 1991. In much of the north-east, the spring has been the wettest for at least 150 years. A mountain stage of the Giro d’Italia bike race was called off due to snow and ice. Beach resorts in Tuscany have been flooded. Many farmers have suffered huge damage to their crops. …. ….Now, as June arrives, it should technically be summer. But it certainly doesn’t feel like it. “Last year, by this point, we were going to the sea. At the beginning of June we went down to the Fori Imperiali and sunbathed,” said Mario Ramelli, a street-corner florist in central Rome. This spring’s brutto tempo has been a topic of conversation with many of his customers – that is, those who stop to buy a pot of pansies or, optimistically, some sunflowers. “When it’s horrid and wet, people hurry by,” said Ramelli. “It’s not good for work.”
… Coldest spring since 1987 Spring 2013 was the coldest in Germany since 1987. The average temperature of 6.7 degrees Celsius (°C) was 1.0 degree lower than the reference values for 1961 to 1990 and as much as 1.8 degrees below the figure for the comparative period from 1981 to 2010. A major factor here was the unusually cold March. From the middle of the month onwards, the temperatures were extremely low, such as on 16 March at Deutschneudorf – Brüderwiese in the mid- range Ore Mountains where a temperature of – 21.3°C was measured and on 24 March in Coschen, to the south of Eisenhüttenstadt, where – 18.9°C was recorded ….
A tourist who found it bewildering said: “It is very strange, but I think the whole of Europe had a very long winter, but I didn’t expect snow in the Serra de Estrela in May.”
The northern Spanish city of Burgos felt temperatures drop to 3ºC on May 15.
In the French interior they’ve been averaging 4-5 degrees below normal, so people have kept the heating going. An extra tank of fuel for that cost an ordinary family household 445 euros – at 90 cents a litre. .. …This has meant a 5-10 percent rise in electricity consumption, compared to previous years – similarly for combustible pellets.

I’m not comfortable with this line of attack. Even really, really bad science shouldn’t be criminalized.
Cut their budgets to zero, but don’t charge them with a criminal act. That’s James Hansen talk.


The IPCC, having spent almost two months working out how to respond to my complaint about a notoriously bogus graph in its Fourth Assessment Report, has found itself not guilty.
That’s ok, m’Lord–the IRS just announced they’re not guilty of misconduct, too! Amazing!
Seems all these self-inspecting, self-emancipating (yet criminally-inclined) assemblies doth make a mockery out of truth and justice.
Much to their own lack of dismay.
They’re targets ripe for prosection. Bombs away.

Werner Brozek

If you update the graph and slightly alter the times, you actually get a deceleration in warming or cooling. See what the slopes look like for the last 48 years, 24 years and 12 years.


The answer is “Yes”.

Gail Combs

Beta Blocker says:
June 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm
Dr. Fred Singer has said that in his opinion, the earth will continue to warm for another 200 to 300 years until a temperature matching that which existed at the height of the Medievel Warm Period has been reached…..
I doubt it.
Greenland Ice Core: Graph last 10,000 years (From Jo Nova)
Lead time of insolation energy vs temperature
This graph says, the earth has no business being as warm as it is right now.
“.. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity [glaciers increasing in size] is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP….” link
Alley in his study of abrupt climate change found

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises ( 2002 )
executive summary:
Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most
of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age.

And no one knows what causes Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations and terminations.