The following letter was sent to Dr. Lee, the Chair of the IPCC earlier today (May 25th, 2023) by Dr. A.J. (Guus) Berkhout, President of Clintel, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, and a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Professor Dr. Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC,
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix C.P. 2300
CH -1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland.
The Hague, May 25, 2023
Dear Dr. Hoesung Lee,
With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle, consisting of seven reports in total. An international team of scientists from the 1500-strong Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel) has assessed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. Results have been summarized in Clintel’s report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC:
Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report – Clintel
As background information, I wish to remind you of the 2010 InterAcademies Council (IAC) review of IPCC procedures, which was commissioned in the aftermath of disastrous publicity regarding errors in earlier IPCC reports and revelations of efforts by IPCC Lead Authors to stifle debate. The IAC concluded in part (emphasis added by me):
Given that the IAC report was prompted in part by the revelation of errors in the last assessment, the committee examined IPCC’s review process as well. It concluded that the process is thorough, but stronger enforcement of existing IPCC review procedures could minimize the number of errors. To that end, IPCC should encourage review editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that all review comments are adequately considered. Review editors should also ensure that genuine controversies are reflected in the report and be satisfied that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views. Lead authors should explicitly document that the full range of thoughtful scientific views has been considered.[1]
2010 InterAcademies Council (IAC) review of IPCC procedures
We regrettably conclude that the IPCC has failed to follow this advice and the AR6 exhibits the same flaws as before, namely biased selection of evidence, failure to reflect genuine controversies and failure to give due consideration to properly documented alternative views.
To give one example, the IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature, showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC’s authors asserted the opposite conclusions based on cherry-picked evidence, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change, and the review process failed to correct this inaccuracy.
Clintel’s 180-page report, The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, is the first large scale international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows that IPCC makes numerous serious scientific errors that overall reflect a bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’. This was the case throughout the report and especially in the preparation of the Summary for Policy Makers. The good news about disaster losses and climate related deaths was left out of the Summary for Policy Makers all together, for instance.
Additionally, where the IPCC AR6 has taken account of evidence that points away from a dismal, worst-case outlook, such as recognition that the RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 emission scenarios are low likelihood and that models systematically overstate warming in the tropical troposphere, these findings are buried deep in the chapters and are not emphasized for the media or policy makers. Even worse, despite having concluded in its discussion of emission scenarios that the extreme ones are low likelihood, they are nevertheless given maximum prominence in other parts of the report for the purpose of projecting climate impacts.
Finally, we note that the IPCC has remained silent while the UN Secretary-General and other high-ranking officials repeatedly misrepresented the findings of the IPCC. For example, Secretary-General Guterres said of the Working Group 1 report:[2]
“Today’s IPCC Working Group 1 report is a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse‑gas emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.”
Secretary-General Guterres
The AR6 Working Group 1 report did not say these things, yet the IPCC never corrected him nor challenged any of the similarly inaccurate media coverage that distorts the contents of your report.
With all respect Dr. Lee, seriously misleading the world on such an important subject and on such a large scale is unacceptable for a UN organization that claims to be scientific. The errors and biases that Clintel has found in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the 2010 IAC Review, indicating ongoing failure of the IPCC to live up to its mission.
The Clintel network therefore requests the following:
- That the IPCC commissions a team with representation from Clintel and other independent persons not involved in IPCC Leadership to review whether the IPCC has fully implemented and followed the reforms recommended by the 2010 IAC Review, and whether more reforms are needed.
- That the IPCC reviews prominent statements by major world leaders and media outlets paraphrasing the contents of the AR6 and correct the record where those statements are misleading or inaccurate.
- That the IPCC meets with representatives from Clintel to receive input on the key deficiencies highlighted in our report that require a formal correction.
Looking forward to your response,
Yours sincerely,
Dr. A.J. (Guus) Berkhout, President of Clintel, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
P.S. The main objective of the Climate Intelligence Foundation (Clintel) is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change, as well as of the effects of climate policy. Clintel published the World Climate Declaration, which has now been signed by more than 1500 scientists and experts worldwide, thus rivalling in size and credentials the IPCC’s Working Group authorship lists. See www.clintel.org.
The letter is lightly edited to get it into blog post format.
https://www.interacademies.org/news/interacademy-council-report-recommends-fundamental-reform-ipcc-management-structure ↑
Good work. Thanks for taking on this task – I’m deeply grateful.
This is very good, but will have IMO no near term IPCC impact. They are politically driven and impervious to truth—until threatened by consequences:
Rud, I’m wondering if Clintel and other skeptic groups could attend most IPCC and other governmental press conferences, working groups and other meetings to loudly proclaim and make available this Clintel report. You know, kind of like tacking 95 theses to the Wittenberg castle church doors? Without publicity the whole thing goes down the memory rathole.
I’ll await their reply but won’t hold my breath.
A supporting anecdote, Back in 2013, I was able to rapidly and easily prove Marcott’s Science hockeystick was scientific misconduct. Posted on Judith’s. Then decided to include in a forthcoming book. Sent that book essay chapter to then Science chief editor Marsha McNult. Her assistant emailed me acknowledging receipt. Then nothing, Is essay ‘A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Rud, awhile back you told me of your attempts to get Oregon State University and Science to look into the scientific fraud committed in Marcott’s study, to no avail. Could a formal complaint to the Federal funding agencies do the trick? You have Steve McIntyre’s audit of the alkenone series showing changes made to the dating of the proxies plus the other falsified data listed in Blowing Smoke.
story tip
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/05/media-giant-ap-news-sells-out-journalism-for-just-8m-from-billionaires/
No surprise. Another “conspiracy theory” becomes truth.
There is a bit of weaseling in climate literature on some of these issues.
In a deceitful way promoted by the press, such as reporting increasing mortality, the metrics are often referenced to a baseline of no alleged climate change.
So instead of a 95% reduction of mortality with climate change, the claim is it would have been a 96% reduction without.
This is communicated as an increase. The same goes for food production. Even though yields are increasing, the claim is food production would have increased further-still. I do not agree, but the same principle goes that it is communicated as a decrease in food production.
I think press and politicians generally do not know this, and so most people do not know this. Because they don’t know this, and because researchers are not clarifying this, when you show a chart of absolute decreasing mortality, or increasing food production, people will think you are lying. Your stats will be met with accusations of denial, misinformation, and racism.
This pea and thimble ruse is currently being used by the Oz federal government with regard to power prices.
They are predicting a 20-29% increase in July (state dependent) but claim they are keeping prices down as the increases would have been higher except for their policies.
Don’t look behind the curtain to see that the increases are due to their policy of more renewables and the subsequent closing of fossil-fueled power stations
There is a bit of weaseling in climate literature on some of these issues.
No the science is settled and we’ve all moved on to cooling the planet but still some impure thoughts persist-
Energy regulator has ‘warned of lack of power’ in NSW (msn.com)
When all that’s required is more computer modelling and a digital insight approach to expunge negativity and sort out a few minor teething problems with the vision splendid-
Grid has untapped capacity that could be used by renewables. But networks can’t see it | RenewEconomy
The industry as a whole is moving ahead with a clear understanding of the current state of play and the next steps required to build a reliable, resilient grid also supported by renewables.
Instead of spending Trilllions of dollars on windmills and solar, we should be spending money investigating why the IPCC is giving us lies and distortions about CO2 and the Earth’s climate.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is the biggest scientific hoax in human history. The Hoax is perpetrated by the lies and distortions told by the IPCC. The people telling these scary climate change stories are criminals, who are defrauding humanity.
When the former head of the IPCC states that the goal,of the environmental movement is more about the destruction of capitalism than fixing the climate, no amount of refuting bogus environmental reports will have any effect whatsoever- the goal,is worldwide communism – if they thought using fossil fuels would help to achieve that goal they would be all in for using fossil fuels
Dear Dr Berghout,
Go away.
(signed)
Dr Lee
A well balanced letter, let us hope it gets a reasoned and timely response. Like many others here I suspect it will be completely ignored under the rules of the religion of Climate Alarm.
The rules clearly state, ‘engagement with scientists and other none believers in human induced climate change, are not to be undertaken’….ever.
Looking forward to your response,
Yours sincerely,
____________________________
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Fat chance of that.