Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Elaine Dewar spent several days with Maurice Strong at the UN and concluded in her book The Cloak of Green that, Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda. Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders who decided the rich countries were the principle risk to the world. These countries refused to reduce their environmental impact. The leaders decided the only hope for the planet was for collapse of the industrialized nations and it was their responsibility to bring that about. Strong knew what to do. Create a false problem with false science and use bureaucrats to bypass politicians to close industry down and make developed countries pay.

Compare the industrialized nation to an internal combustion engine running on fossil fuel. You can stop the engine in two ways; cut off the fuel supply or plug the exhaust. Cutting off fuel supply is a political minefield. People quickly notice as all prices, especially food, increase. It’s easier to show the exhaust is causing irreparable environmental damage. This is why CO2 became the exclusive focus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Process and method were orchestrated to single out CO2 and show it was causing runaway global warming.

In the 1980s I warned Environment Canada employee Henry Hengeveld that convincing a politician of an idea is a problem. Henry’s career involved promoting CO2 as a problem. I explained the bigger problem comes if you convince them and the claim is proved wrong. You either admit your error or hide the truth. Environment Canada and member nations of the IPCC chose to hide or obfuscate the truth.

1. IPCC Definition of Climate Change Was First Major Deception

People were deceived when the IPCC was created. Most believe it’s a government commission of inquiry studying all climate change. The actual definition from the United Nations Environment Program (article 1) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) limits them to only human causes.

a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

In another deception, they changed the definition used in the first three Reports (1990, 1995, 2001) in the 2007 Report. It’s a footnote in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM).

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

It was not used because Reports are cumulative and to include natural variability required starting over completely.

It is impossible to determine the human contribution to climate change if you don’t know or understand natural (non-human) climate change. Professor Murray Salby showed how the human CO2 portion is of no consequence, that variation in natural sources of CO2 explains almost all annual changes. He showed that a 5% variation in these sources is more than the total annual human production.

2. IPCC Infer And Prove Rather than Disprove a Hypothesis

To make the process appear scientific a hypothesis was inferred based on the assumptions that,

• CO2 was a greenhouse gas (GHG) that slowed the escape of heat from the Earth.

• the heat was back-radiated to raise the global temperature.

• if CO2 increased global temperature would rise.

• CO2 would increase because of expanding industrial activity.

• the global temperature rise was inevitable.

To further assure the predetermined outcome the IPCC set out to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis as scientific methodology requires. As Karl Popper said,

It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.

The consistent and overwhelming pattern of the IPCC reveal misrepresentations of CO2. When an issue was raised by scientists performing their role as skeptics, instead of considering and testing its validity and efficacy the IPCC worked to divert, even creating some false explanations. False answers succeeded because most people didn’t know they were false.

3. CO2 Facts Unknown to Most But Problematic to IPCC.

Some basic facts about CO2 are unknown to most people and illustrate the discrepancies and differences between IPCC claims and what science knows.

• Natural levels of Carbon dioxide (CO2) are less than 0.04% of the total atmosphere and 0.4% of the total GHG. It is not the most important greenhouse gas.

• Water vapour is 95 percent of the GHG by volume. It is the most important greenhouse gas by far.

• Methane (CH4) is the other natural GHG demonized by the IPCC. It is only 0.000175 percent of atmospheric gases and 0.036 percent of GHG.

• Figure 1 from ABC news shows the false information. It’s achieved by considering a dry atmosphere.


Figure 1

• The percentages troubled the IPCC so they amplified the importance of CO2 by estimating the “contribution” per unit (Figure 2). The range of estimates effectively makes the measures meaningless, unless you have a political agenda. Wikipedia acknowledges It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect.


Figure 2 (Source Wikipedia)

4. Human CO2 production critical to IPCC objective so they control production of the information.

Here is their explanation.

What is the role of the IPCC in Greenhouse Gas inventories and reporting to the UNFCCC?

A: The IPCC has generated a number of methodology reports on national greenhouse gas inventories with a view to providing internationally acceptable inventory methodologies. The IPCC accepts the responsibility to provide scientific and technical advice on specific questions related to those inventory methods and practices that are contained in these reports, or at the request of the UNFCCC in accordance with established IPCC procedures. The IPCC has set up the Task Force on Inventories (TFI) to run the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Programme (NGGIP) to produce this methodological advice. Parties to the UNFCCC have agreed to use the IPCC Guidelines in reporting to the convention.

How does the IPCC produce its inventory Guidelines? Utilising IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC. This process ensures that the widest possible range of views are incorporated into the documents.

They control the entire process from methodology, designation of technical advice, establishment of task forces, guidelines for reporting, nomination of experts to produce the reports, to final report approval. The figure they produce is a gross calculation, but it is estimated humans remove 50% of that amount.

Regardless, if you don’t know natural sources and variabilities of CO2 you cannot know the human portion. It was claimed the portion in the atmosphere from combustion of fossil fuels was known from the ratio of carbon isotopes C13/C12. Roy Spencer showed this was not the case. In addition, they ignore natural burning of fossil fuels including forest fires, long-burning coal seams and peat; as Hans Erren noted, fossil coal is buried wood. Spencer concluded,

If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??

The answer is, it was done to prove the hypothesis and further the deception.

5. Pressure For Urgent Political Action

Early IPCC Reports claimed the length of time CO2 remains in the atmosphere as very long. This implied it would continue as a problem even with immediate cessation of CO2 production. However as Segalstad wrote,

Essenhigh (2009) points out that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in their first report (Houghton et al., 1990) gives an atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) of 50-200 years [as a “rough estimate”]. This estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid; and they are in conflict with the more correct explanation given elsewhere in the same IPCC report: “This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.

6. Procedures to Hide Problems with IPCC Science And Heighten Alarmism.

IPCC procedures and mechanisms were established to deceive. IPCC has three Working Groups (WG). WGI produces the Physical Science Basis Report, which proves CO2 is the cause. WGII produces the Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Report that is based on the result of WGI. WGIII produces the Mitigation of Climate Change Report. WGI and WGII accept WGI’s claim that warming is inevitable. They state,

Five criteria that should be met by climate scenarios if they are to be useful for impact researchers and policy makers are suggested: Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).

They knew few would read or understand the Science Report with its admission of serious limitations. They deliberately delayed its release until after the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). As David Wojick explained,

Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the policymakers”—including the press and the publicwho read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it.

What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

An example of this SPM deception occurred with the 1995 Report. The 1990 Report and the drafted 1995 Science Report said there was no evidence of a human effect. Benjamin Santer, as lead author of Chapter 8, changed the 1995 SPM for Chapter 8 drafted by his fellow authors that said,

While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.

to read,

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.

The phrase “discernible human influence became the headline as planned.

With AR5 (2013) they compounded the deception by releasing the SPM then releasing a correction. They got the headline they wanted. It is the same game as the difference between the exposure of problems in the WGI Science Report and the SPM. Media did not report the corrections, but the IPCC could now claim they detailed the inadequacy of their work. It’s not their fault that people don’t understand.

7. Climate Sensitivity

Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature. Then it was determined that the first few parts per million achieved the greenhouse capacity of CO2. Eschenbach graphed the reality


(Figure 3).

Figure 3

It is like black paint on a window. To block sunlight coming through a window the first coat of black paint achieves most of the reduction. Subsequent coats reduce fractionally less light.

There was immediate disagreement about the amount of climate sensitivity from double and triple atmospheric CO2. Milloy produced a graph comparing three different sensitivity estimates (Figure 4).


Figure 4.

The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.

Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.

8. The Ice Cores Were Critical, But Seriously Flawed.

The major assumption of the inferred IPCC hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., the Antarctic ice core records appeared as evidence in the 2001 Report (Figure 5).


Figure 5. Antarctic core core record

Four years later research showed the reverse – temperature increase preceded CO2 increase contradicting the hypothesis. It was sidelined with the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years and insignificant. It was so troubling that Al Gore created a deceptive imagery in his movie. Only a few experts noticed.

Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?


Figure 6; Lag time for short record, 1958 to 2009.

IPCC Needed Low Pre-Industrial CO2 Levels

A pre-industrial CO2 level lower than today was critical to the IPCC hypothesis. It was like the need to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period because it showed the world was not warmer today than ever before.

Ice cores are not the only source of pre-industrial CO2 levels. There are thousands of 19th Century direct measures of atmospheric CO2 that began in 1812. Scientists took precise measurements with calibrated instruments as Ernst Beck thoroughly documented.

In a paper submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski stated,

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.[1]

Of equal importance Jaworowski states,

The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv[11] (Figure 2). In Figure 2 encircled values show a biased selection of data used to demonstrate that in 19th century atmosphere the CO2 level was 292 ppmv[12]. A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppmv, and 9600 years ago 348 ppmv, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution [13].

There are other problems with the ice core record. It takes years for air to be trapped in the ice, so what is actually trapped and measured? Meltwater moving through the ice especially when the ice is close to the surface can contaminate the bubble. Bacteria form in the ice, releasing gases even in 500,000-year-old ice at considerable depth. (Detection, Recovery, Isolation and Characterization of Bacteria in Glacial Ice and Lake Vostok Accretion Ice. Brent C. Christner, 2002 Dissertation. Ohio State University). Pressure of overlying ice, causes a change below 50m and brittle ice becomes plastic and begins to flow. The layers formed with each year of snowfall gradually disappear with increasing compression. It requires a considerable depth of ice over a long period to obtain a single reading at depth. Jaworowski identified the problems with contamination and losses during drilling and core recovery process.

Jaworowski’s claim that the modellers ignored the 19th century readings is incorrect. They knew about it because T.R.Wigley introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science community in 1983. (Wigley, T.M.L., 1983 “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level.” Climatic Change 5, 315-320). However, he cherry-picked from a wide range, eliminating only high readings and ‘creating’ the pre-industrial level as approximately 270 ppm. I suggest this is what influenced the modellers because Wigley was working with them as Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia. He preceded Phil Jones as Director and was the key person directing the machinations revealed by the leaked emails from the CRU.

Wigley was not the first to misuse the 19th century data, but he did reintroduce it to the climate community. Guy Stewart Callendar, a British Steam engineer, pushed the thesis that increasing CO2 was causing warming. He did what Wigley did by selecting only those readings that supported the hypothesis.

There are 90,000 samples from the 19th century and the graph shows those carefully selected by G. S. Callendar to achieve his estimate. It is clear he chose only low readings.


Figure 7. (After Jawaorowski Trend Lines added)

You can see changes that occur in the slope and trend by the selected data compared to the entire record.

Ernst-Georg Beck confirmed Jaworowski’s research. An article in Energy and Environment examined the readings in great detail and validated their findings. In his conclusion Beck states

Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because they did not fit their hypothesis? Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil fuel.

The pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level claimed.

Beck found,

Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.

The challenge for the IPCC was to create a smooth transition from the ice core CO2 levels to the Mauna Loa levels. Beck shows how this was done but also shows how the 19th century readings had to be cherry-picked to fit with ice core and Mauna Loa data (Figure 8).


Figure 8

Variability is extremely important because the ice core record shows an exceptionally smooth curve achieved by applying a 70-year smoothing average. Selecting and smoothing is also applied to the Mauna Loa data and all current atmospheric readings, which naturally vary up to 600 ppm in the course of a day. Smoothing done on the scale of the ice core record eliminates a great deal of information. Consider the variability of temperature data for the last 70 years. Statistician William Brigg’s says you never, ever, smooth a time-series. Elimination of high readings prior to the smoothing make the losses greater. Beck explains how Charles Keeling established the Mauna Loa readings by using the lowest readings of the afternoon and ignored natural sources. Beck presumes Keeling decided to avoid these low level natural sources by establishing the station at 4000 m up the volcano. As Beck notes

“Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2on different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude. (Beck, 2008, “50 Years of Continuous Measurement of CO2on Mauna Loa” Energy and Environment, Vol. 19, No.7.)

Keeling’s son operates Mauna Loa and as Beck notes, “owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2measurements. He is a co-author of the IPCC reports, that accept Mauna Loa and all other readings as representative of global levels.

As a climatologist I know it is necessary to obtain as many independent verifications of data as possible. Stomata are small openings on leaves, which vary in size directly with the amount of atmospheric CO2. They underscore effects of smoothing and the artificially low readings of the ice cores. A comparison of a stomata record with the ice core record for a 2000-year period (9000 – 7000 BP) illustrates the issue (Figure 9).


Figure 9.

Stomata data show higher readings and variability than the excessively smoothed ice core record. They align quantitatively with the 19th century measurements as Jaworowski and Beck assert. The average level for the ice core record shown is approximately 265 ppm while it is approximately 300 ppm for the stomata record.

The pre-industrial CO2 level was marginally lower than current levels and likely within the error factor. Neither they, nor the present IPCC claims of 400 ppm are high relative to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre-industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combine this with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase, when all records show the opposite, it is not surprising IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.

The IPCC deception was premeditated under Maurice Strong’s guidance to prove CO2 was causing global warming as pretext for shutting down industrialized nations. They partially achieved their goal as alternate energies and green job economies attest. All this occurred as contradictory evidence mounts because Nature refused to play. CO2 increases as temperatures decline, which according to IPCC science cannot happen. Politicians must deal with facts and abandon all policies based on claims that CO2 is a problem, especially those already causing damage.


Source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation: CCNet 14/10/13

1. [1] “Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2” Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski March 19, 2004


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Great article on the orwellian rewriting of science and CO2. We do live in a dark age of superstition and ignorance. Where stupid now means science (see evolution).

Graham of Sydney

“the principle [sic] risk to the world.”
Can’t spell, can’t reason.


Waitwaitwait. We calibrate our CO2 instruments from a sensor parked on the side of an active volcano? Which pencil neck thought this was a good idea? I’d always figured it was the other way around and never gave much thought to the Mauna Loa readings because: Hey, as the CO2 climbs as the mountain gets ready to pop again? Who. Cares. Because we’re measuring and calibrating elsewhere.
But, really? The gold standard of all measurements and the sense we calibrate the universe by is parked in a place that is *guaranteed* to have its own completely natural CO2 escalation as it propels itself towards another eruption?
Dr. Ball, if that’s at all right as you say, then someone needs to puts these braying donkey’s seriously out to pasture. Because who cares about putting instruments next to an air conditioner when the whole thesis is based on: Pretend this isn’t an active volcano. Now calibrate things.


So what’s in it for Maurice Strong? Does he figure the world will elect him to be King of the World, after he plunges the world into chaos and destroys the world’s economy?
He’s as clueless as he is evil. I wish he’d quickly “age out”.


This sounds remarkably like what has happened though I’m not prone to conspiracy theories. I’m inclined not to believe this was consciously made up. However I am inclined to believe that some activists flew a kite that for some odd reason got traction, socialism has been riding that traction ever since. It’s so hard to dislodge because the Greens / Socialists don’t want to give up the power it delivers them… It’s become a theology to them, much like the “Bosses are all evil” theology that pervades the union movement while all the while it’s the union officials caught with their snouts in the trough.
Science is just the innocent casualty of an accident of politics
CAGW is just a goof up, bit like Y2k

Is Maurice Strong still alive? Haven’t seen him on the MSM or even MSNBC.

Tom G(ologist)

Whoa – I have to re-read this when I have time. If you are all piqued by this great piece, you should also read The Age of Global Warming: A History, by Rupert Darwal. Really dense but an eye opener

Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Climate Change Is Not The Problem – Fuel Poverty Is

P.D. Caldwell

Thank you Dr. Tim Ball for concisely enumerating the obvious flaws in the IPCC reports and the likely basic motivation of the authors.


Jquip 7:13pm: “Pretend (Mauna Loa) isn’t an active volcano.”
Can’t pretend Mauna Loa isn’t an active volcano because it really is. NOAA does know it. Here’s how they control for its CO2 emissions: “How do scientists know that Mauna Loa’s volcanic emissions don’t affect the carbon dioxide data collected there?”
Note NOAA reports their volcano CO2 measurement data is valuable to volcanologists.

The story about the two definitions of climate change are interesting. The IPCC presumed in its work that it meant natural and man made. It was the FCCC that used the definition of manmade only. The FCCC came into existence after the first assessment. The Australian delegation on the 2nd Assessment raised concerns that this would lead to confussion made a fuss about this at the Madrid Plenary of WG1 in Madrid in 1995. It was due to this that the footnote was inserted. Credit goes to John Zillman.

Thanks, Dr. Ball.
You show a deeper root for our problem; According to some people, the rest of the people are like a cancer to the Earth. We must be reduced in numbers; just enough to sustain the elite in their proper place: As (mostly) benign world dictators, saving the Earth from humans.

Great article. Completely true. What we need is some way of sending this out world
Wide. O T …. a reply to an article attacking Willie soon in the boston globe…”thank you
for the entertainment provided by your article on Willie Soon. It was fun to watch the
virtual spit flying from the globes mouth throughout the article.
Rarely have I read a more biased diatribe posing as news.
As for the ipcc being awarded the Nobel peace prize? Pardon me if i’m not as impressed by
That award as I used to be”…..


re: Maurice Strong
He seems to be hiding in the PRC….. he fled to Beijing during the investigations of the “oil for food” scandal wrt Iraq and the UN sanctions:

In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to “Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Strong was never accused of any wrongdoing.[21] During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would “sideline himself until the cloud was removed.”
Shortly after this, Strong moved to an apartment he owned in Beijing.[21] He said that his departure from the U.N. was motivated not by the Oil-for-Food investigations, but by his sense at the time, as Mr. Annan’s special adviser on North Korea, that the U.N. had reached an impasse. “It just happened to coincide with the publicity surrounding my so-called nefarious activities,” he insists. “I had no involvement at all in Oil-for-Food … I just stayed out of it.”[21]


Trick: “Note NOAA reports their volcano CO2 measurement data is valuable to volcanologists.”
And that’s absolutely correct. The problem is calibrating other instruments from Mauna Loa. I don’t mean to call Dr. Ball into question, but the idea that this is the case is beyond absurd.

“Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?”
Now there’s the question of the hour that I would love to get a answer to from the climate alarmists! In my view, that issue has to be the biggest flaw of all in the GCMs.
The problem is that the alarmists probably don’t have an answer to that question. Too bad, because I would love to hear them stumbling through an explanation.

Warmists reply to co2 not causing global warming…..it’s pollution . Until the public is educated
On co2 the train will keep on rolling..

Robert Austin

Fenbeagle draws a hilarious rendering of Maurice Strong as an Ernest Stavro Bloefeld style super villain. Just scroll down to see his likeness.

Another very good article Dr. Ball, – keep them coming!

That the IPCC demonized CO2 with manufactured information is beyond doubt. This conclusion follows from the facts that: a) the IPCC climate models convey no information to makers of policy on CO2 emissions on the outcomes from their policy decisions and b) as they made policies, the makers of these policies must have thought they had information. The lack of information is a consequence from the nonexistence of events underlying the IPCC models. I’d be pleased to elaborate if anyone is interested.

Thank you Dr Ball – we need to get a copy of this to every politician. It is sickening that this evilness has come as far as it has.
So, a bunch of world leaders decided that rich countries are the principal risk to the world in order to destroy them through de-industrialization. Jealous at all, do you think? Presumably it didn’t occur to them to try capitalism – which worked splendidly for the rest of us – it would have been a heck of a lot simpler and hugely productive.
These people could have been admired for doing wonderful things for their countries, their people. They could have been looked up to and gone into the history books as heroes. Instead, these miserable, cowardly, evil sods opted to tear down what they did not have themselves, but could have had they just tried to use a brain cell or two.
They just couldn’t get the idea that freedom produces riches. The solution was staring them right in the face by way of example, and all they could think of was to destroy it and any happiness or hope in the world.
We are looking at the worst crime in human history. I sincerely hope they burn for it. Every last one of them, and their cohorts and minions too. The world would turn on them all if people knew.

I don’t think Mauna Loa is an active volcano.


Christopher Korvin says:
November 13, 2013 at 8:55 pm
“Rising gradually to more than 4 km above sea level, Mauna Loa is the largest volcano on our planet. Its long submarine flanks descend to the sea floor an additional 5 km, and the sea floor in turn is depressed by Mauna Loa’s great mass another 8 km. This makes the volcano’s summit about 17 km (56,000 ft) above its base! The enormous volcano covers half of the Island of Hawai`i and by itself amounts to about 85 percent of all the other Hawaiian Islands combined.
“Mauna Loa is among Earth’s most active volcanoes, having erupted 33 times since its first well-documented historical eruption in 1843. Its most recent eruption was in 1984. Mauna Loa is certain to erupt again, and we carefully monitor the volcano for signs of unrest.”
But wait, there’s more!
The CO2 sensors are also down the prevailing winds from Kilauea, which has been actively erupting since 1983:
“Kīlauea is the youngest and southeastern most volcano on the Big Island of Hawai`i. Topographically Kīlauea appears as only a bulge on the southeastern flank of Mauna Loa, and so for many years Kīlauea was thought to be a mere satellite of its giant neighbor, not a separate volcano. However, research over the past few decades shows clearly that Kīlauea has its own magma-plumbing system, extending to the surface from more than 60 km deep in the earth.
“In fact, the summit of Kīlauea lies on a curving line of volcanoes that includes Mauna Kea and Kohala and excludes Mauna Loa. In other words, Kīlauea is to Mauna Kea as Lo`ihi is to Mauna Loa. Hawaiians used the word Kīlauea only for the summit caldera, but earth scientists and, over time, popular usage have extended the name to include the entire volcano.
“The eruption of Kīlauea Volcano that began in 1983 continues at the cinder-and-spatter cone of Pu`u `Ō `ō. Lava erupting from the cone flows through a tube system down Pulama pali about 11 km to the sea.”

Correction ! ! I read that Mauna Loa is technically classified as active. It last erupted, I read, in 1984..So not very active just now, for 30 years. I didn’t see anything resembling an eruption when I was there recently .But as CO2 is invisible, colorless, and odorless it could have been gently seeping out of the ground without me observing it. So, perhaps someone who is more informed than me could tell us authoritatively whether this ongoing Co2 seepage. It seems unlikely.

Getting worse by the minute ! “There is” for “this”


It’s true, though not a lot of people know it.
“The laboratory of Charles Keeling owns the global monopoly of calibration of all CO2
measurements (WMO 2001/2003). ”


Christopher Korvin says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Monitoring CO2 production on Mauna Loa since the 1984 eruption:
You can also read about the CO2 produced locally on Mauna Loa in a number of posts on this blog. It really is a very much active volcano. By contrast, the last major eruption of the still active Mt. Hood, Oregon’s tallest mountain, was in the 1790s.
Then there is, as I noted, the continuous emission from Kilauea, & the undersea baby volcanoes nearby.

John F. Hultquist

Above Figure 3 there is “Eschenbach graphed the reality ” . . .
and this may be true. However, I think I first saw this in a post by David Archibald and it was there attributed to a run on MODTRAN. It was suggested, but not quite clear, that David did this simulation or arranged for it. See this 22 October 2007 paper:
My only concern here is that I do not know how accurate this chart is nor where it came from but I would be reluctant to use it with only the knowledge that “Eschenbach graphed” it. I have seen other presentations of this idea, including here on WUWT, and so I am not questioning the concept. As there is no link here to which of Willis’ work this graph comes from I do not think this use meets the standard for a serious article.


John F. Hultquist says:
November 13, 2013 at 9:21 pm
Thanks very much for the link to Archibald 2007.

Thanks Dr. Ball for a great summary of IPCC incompetence
Some reinforcing points:
1. Fig 2 above from the IPCC says CO2 comprises 9-26% of the greenhouse effect
That’s quite a spread for the alleged 33K greenhouse effect ranging from a total CO2 greenhouse effect of 3C to 9C; remarkable in and of itself given the huge implications for climate sensitivity.
But since Andy Lacis, Gavin Schmidt, Chris Colose, James Hansen et al claim that CO2 comprises 20% of the alleged 33C greenhouse effect, lets assume 20%:
Thus, that would imply CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C after all feedbacks despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels. This would thus imply a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 of 0.33C = ln(2)*[.16/ln(1.4)], 9 times less than claimed by the IPCC.
2. Segalstad: “This [CO2 lifetime] estimate is confusingly given as an adjustment time for a scenario with a given anthropogenic CO2 input, and ignores natural (sea and vegetation) CO2 flux rates. Such estimates are analytically invalid…”
Quite right as shown by many peer-reviewed papers, including a new paper published today:
3. Lindzen & Choi 2010, in addition to finding “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.” find the net climate feedbacks from water vapor, clouds, etc. are negative
line 39: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/05/dr-lindzens-new-paper-07c-temperature.html
4. Re ice cores: “It was sidelined with the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years and insignificant.”
A new paper finds from high-resolution ice core analysis that CO2 lags temperature by 500-5000 years:
5. “Actually, temperature changes before CO2 change in every record for any period or duration. Figure 6 shows a shorter record (1958-2009) of the relationship. If CO2 change follows temperature change in every record, why are all computer models programmed with the opposite relationship?”
Mathematical & observational proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate


In public policy making it is important to analyze carefully where you and your opposition stand in the social construction board. Big oil, big tobacco and any big business for that matter, is on the highly advantaged ( with its financial and social muscle) but negative perception such that any losing player could still win the public policy debate by painting his opponent as being paid, part or sympathetic of big oil. ( This is a generalization of the social phenomena where debates degenerate to Nazi calling). I dont have to enumerate how alarmist when losing the debate will ultimately protect his position by claiming the skeptics are paid or in cahoots with big oil. On the other hand the ascendancy and career low of Maurice Strong has always been defined by BIG OIL. He was a major player in BIG OIL up to the very end of his public appearance in the west. Nevertheless, nobody would like to paint Maurice Strong creations such as climate change, UNEP, etc as tainted by big oil. Maurice Strong played his card very well in the public policy game, insulating his creations from the stigma of big oil by moving his position to disadvantage positive under the cover of fear and ignorance creating an effective impenetrable wall in the center. The last that was heard of him was self exile in Beijing. While nothing is heard about Maurice Strong publicly in recent years, he could potentially be behind a lot of surprises in the next few years in the UNFCCC negotiations for a post-Kyoto Protocol implementing mechanism.

Steve Reddish

Fig 2 gives the direct contribution to the greenhouse effect by each of the 4 main GHG’s:
H2O – 36-72 %, CO2 – 9-26%, CH4 – 4-9%, O3 – 3-7%, Per Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas , which further explains that
“The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.”
Since the contributions of CO2, CH4 and O2 in situ total 16%, either there is a very large number of other GHG’s which, while individually of little effect, when taken together contribute 48% of total GHG effect (then why aren’t they counted), or the greenhouse contribution of H2O in situ (36%) has been tremendously understated.

Tom J

An exposé on Maurice Strong could inform the general public on just about everything they’d need to know about the true characters behind the CAGW meme, and thus its legitimacy.
It’s generally claimed that our dear billionaire Maurice got his start in the Canadian oil industry but his real start, in his youth, was actually right from where he’d end his career; the UN. I’ve always found it curious how all these benevolent public servant types always seem to wind up being million or billionaires. And the fortunes always seem to follow those career choices. Thus one is left to wonder just how much of an anomaly the UN Oil for Food Scandal really is in the strata these parasites occupy. It’s no secret that Tariq Aziz offered million dollar plus bribes to UN officials so is it coincidence that one of these checks found its way into Maurice’s wrinkly old hands? And is it a coincidence that after that ‘inconvenient’ exposure of a one million dollar check from Iraq that our dear Maurice decided to scoot his sorry behind to his penthouse apartment in Beijing: a building that he shares with a few embassies.
Canadian Maurice Strong’s long overdue retirement in Beijing also paints a picture of his true sensitivities. His current safe haven is the result of a 40 year relationship with China which would seem to indicate it predates the reforms of Deng Xiaopeng and harks all the way back to Chairman Mao.
This is only a brief history of one of the individuals formerly entrusted with being 2nd in command at the UN. Who has called for the destruction of industrial society. Who has engineered this destruction through the control of energy sources falsely justified through a scientific scam of epic proportions. Society needs to put aside these leeches and reread the warnings we were given almost 250 years ago by Thomas Paine: a man who did not die a multi-billionaire with a beak in a public watering trough.


BBC article suggesting seas are already becoming acidic from CO2 and will lead to loss of 30% of marine species by 2100. This is so far from any reality I wonder how they expect to get away with it!


Maurice Strong is alive and well. Strong links to the Liberals -family ties with Chretien, working relation with Bob Rae etc…- are well known.
So when his friends at the Anglo-Canadian group Thomson Reuters offered him in April 2013 an Op-ed in the Globe & Mail in which he attacked the present Canadian government for not caving to the pressure -others would say blackmail- of the US Foundation backed green movement and their bankers, he meant business.
At the same time Strong was front page in Canada, Thomas Homer-Dixon a regular green monger in the Globe, director of CIGI, a Balsillie, Rockefeller Brothers and Soros funded green institute was backstabbing the Canadian government and its support for pipelines in a New York Times editorial.
Recently Liberal leader Justin Trudeau called for a carbon tax in Calgary. First Nations activists are being used to oppose developments in Alberta, BC, Ontario or New Brunswick by organisations funded by US billionaires and benefiting from a so called charitable status in Canada. Liberal linked mayors in Vancouver, Calgary are working hand in hand with some of those “charities” such as the Sierra Club. The David Suzuki Foundation whose chairman is Desmogblog’s founder has been hired by the UK to help “explain” the advantages of carbon markets in BC.
Powerful interests have installed their puppets at every level of government -municipal, provincial and federal opposition-, in academia and in the media in order to manipulate public opinion through alarming climate stories in order to condition masses to demand and welcome policies these financiers seek to impose on a captive audience and that will make them richer. Meanwhile, the same Globe & Mail keeps running regular articles about income inequality, managing the “tour-de-force” of having their most leftish readers supporting the richest family in Canada through demonisation of the “bad rich”, that is those who do not foster the green diktat.


Graham of Sydney says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:08 pm
“the principle [sic] risk to the world.”
Can’t spell, can’t reason.
Can’t fault the substance of the essay but only find a piddling spelling error. Looks to me you agree with Balls presentation.!

F. Ross

Graham of Sydney says:
November 13, 2013 at 7:08 pm
“the principle [sic] risk to the world.”
Can’t spell, can’t reason.

While it is unclear to me exactly who made the spelling error ( Dr. Ball, Dewar, or Strong?), your ad hominem seems a bit out of place for such a mistake.
On the whole I thought the article was very interesting and well presented.

Thank you Tim for an excellent article. It is frightening that corrupt, self-serving organisations like the IPCC can not only survive, but thrive using money they obtain by deception from the countries and taxpayers they clearly despise.
The BBC can be tarred with the same brush, their propaganda machine is back on track because over the last few days they have been “informing” us in their news items about ocean acidification, increased global temperatures and all the other warmist c**p that they shove down our collective throats whenever we have an autumnal mild spell of weather.
If anyone on WUWT wants to hear how nauseatingly bigoted the BBC can be, go to the BBC Radio 2 website and listen to Jeremy Vine’s programme from 12:00 noon (GMT) yesterday (13 November). The “debate” was cynically about whether AGW caused the typhoon that hit the Phillipines. I have parathesised debate because the only “expert” was George Monbiot, there was no-one else present to provide an opposing view.
The sooner all of these lies and deceit are exposed, the better!


“anticlimactic says:
November 13, 2013 at 10:32 pm”
From a linked article in the article you link to;
“At the end of last year, Dr Hall-Spencer published his findings on one volcanic vent site off Ischia Island near Vesuvius. But at this meeting, he reported soon-to-be-published data gathered at other volcanic vents in Europe, Baja California and Papua New Guinea. They all show the same outcomes as at Ischia.”
Acidity at one submerged volcanic vent site is “evidence” the global oceans by 2100 will be 170% more acidic and they expect 30% of ocean sea life not to survive? That’s one hell of a claim! I agree, it was a ridiculous article but the BBC let themselves off by publishing a disclaimer about articles they link to.
I saw a documentary about a similar site in Papua New Guinea. The reefs were discovered about 10 years ago. Where CO2 bubbles up (Concentration not specified) the reef was in poor condition, but reefs around it were fine. Of course, no-one outside the study can corroborate that. So if CO2 was making the sea acidic and killing the reef, why isn’t the CO2 being mixed by sea currents and “killing off” the surrounding reefs?


Very interesting! Useful to have this information pulled together in one place.
Regarding CO2 lag in the ice-core record, I’ve had it explained to me that in the past this was indeed the case but human influence is now driving temperature, so once the natural process kicks in as well the temperature will rise even more.
I note that some AGW people are now not focusing on the temperature so much as the rate of increase of temperature, saying that it is (was?!) the rate which is “unprecedented” rather than the temperature itself. As Anthony says, you have to keep watching the pea.


A proposed test for CO2 greenhouse effect.
I obviously don’t have the wherewithal to do this test, but there must be some way of doing it.
It uses two identical disused power station cooling towers next to each other.
Temperature sensors are set up at close, regular height intervals inside each towers.
“Atmosphere” is pumped slowly into the base of each tower after regulating to the same ambient temperature.
Into one tower, the CO2 concentration pumped in is, say 700ppm, and in the other tower the CO2 concentration is 350ppm. This CO2 level in also monitored at several height points.
The same humidity is controlled for each tower. (Tests could be run using several different humidity percentages.)
A series of tests is run, each for a whole day, where the temperature at each set height is recorded against time.
Since the AGW brethren are the only ones likely to have access to the funds to do such testing, I DARE them to arrange this test, with suitable scientific monitoring, of course.
I really want to know… does raised atmospheric CO2 levels cause any atmospheric warming..
I doubt it very much
ps.. this is only a first run of this testing idea. It would obviously need to be much better planned.

Brian H

None of this is news. When my personal lib-green bubble first burst around 2000, I began reading more widely, and all of this was known and available, as time went on. Good summary, though.

Yes and a neglected side of global warming on this site, is of course the Bernaysian manipulation going on 24/7. This at least brings it into focus. Check out Strong’s connectios to Gore and John Holdren and Club of Rome.

Great summary of the fraud and deception. Needs to be nailed firmly to the CAGW church doors.

Good article……… And a Fen Beagle Illustration (Green isn’t working)….It isn’t.


Another test for atmospheric CO2 effect.
Relocate the emission point of a coal fired power station to a pristine area (offshore, desert, forest…) to create an artificial CO2 dome in the air, with higher CO2 concentrations closer to the emission point. The flue gas can be additionally filtered from ash and soot particles, and cooled to the ambient temperatures. This shouldn’t be very expensive.
Now, one can measure all kinds of parameters, like CO2 concentrations, temperatures, wind, humidity, surface heat fluxes etc, and see the influence of CO2 on these parameters.


Initially it was assumed that constantly increasing atmospheric CO2 created constantly increasing temperature.

Huh? Assumed by whom? Arrhenius’s law is logarithmic, so I guess you are refering the some assumption that predates his law.
I found this entire article to be hard to accept, from the conspiracy thoeries in the first paragraph onwards. “Strong conjectured about a small group of world leaders …”. Seriously? Exactly who were these “world leaders” who decided to destroy the industrialised world? And why would Strong, an entrepreneur with major fossil fuel interests, go along with it?


Thank you Dr. Ball for a great and very important article that all should read in detail. Have no idea who Elaine Dewar is off hand but her shedding light on her few days of interaction with Strong and the U.N., says what has been rather hidden. Thanks, this is a good reference!

Tim Ball:
Many thanks for your fine overview. It provides a useful reference for people ‘new’ to the subject.
Much of what you say is subject to existing debate here on WUWT and elsewhere. For example, at November 11, 2013 at 12:15 pm in a still active WUWT thread, I concluded a post comparing ice core and stomata CO2 indications saying

Sadly, people tend to ‘champion’ the ice core or the stomata data according to what they think past CO2 concentrations ‘must’ have been. In reality, both ice core and stomata data are indicative and provide useful information, but neither should be taken as a clear and reliable quantitative indication of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

An immediate response to this was a reply which championed the ice core data and tried to rubbish the stomata data! This is typical of how all data is ‘used’ in so-called climate science.
And you touch on my strongest objection to IPCC so-called science when you write

The IPCC created a positive feedback to keep temperatures rising. It claims CO2 causes temperature increase that increases evaporation and water vapour amplifies the temperature trend. Lindzen and Choi, discredited this in their 2011 paper which concluded “The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
Climate sensitivity has declined since and gradually approaches zero. A recent paper by Spencer claims “…climate system is only about half as sensitive to increasing CO2 as previously believed.”

Indeed, empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations each indicate climate sensitivity is ~0.6°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This value is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
Idso published his eight “natural experiments” in Climate Research in April 1998. The IPCC has not mentioned, not reported and not referenced his work. My above link goes to his paper which has this as its Abstract

Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.

The IPCC has studiously ignored empirical information which indicates climate sensitivity (CS) is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration and has only reported high values of CS produced from model studies (i.e. climate ‘understandings’ programmed into computers).
The empirical determinations of CS indicate that effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration above present levels would not be possible to discern natural climate variability is much larger. Therefore, any effect on global temperature of increase to atmospheric CO2 concentration only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has observable effects (observation of its effects would be its detection).