Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Corruption

In an initial historical review, let us look back on an article I authored in 2011. In that year, Donna Laframboise, a Canadian writer, photographer, and feminist activist wrote a book entitled, “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert”. In a prelude to this book, Ms. Laframboise, and a team of examiners audited a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. The IPCC, from its founding and furtherance, stated that it would only use peer-reviewed sources and references, yet the audit team found 5,587 pieces of non-peer-reviewed literature and the unmitigated and prejudicial involvement of several major environmental groups.

In 2010, the InterAcademies Council (IAC) a global network of over 140 national and regional member academies of science, engineering, and medicine, reviewed the IPCC procedures and stated, “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.”

The IAC was a little more kindhearted than the Donna Laframboise team of report auditors.

Nevertheless, in the reports, there were voluminous numbers of politically motivated errors made and uncovered by the Laframboise team as well as IAC and the IPCC did not challenge any of those corruptive findings. The review completely exposed the fallacies of the IPCC up to that point. Now there is an analytical, fault-finding review by Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL), “an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy” and the group that, “was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok” with offices in The Netherlands.

An Assessment of the latest Climate Report by the IPCC, AR6 has been reviewed by over 1500 scientists and as a result, Dr. Guus Berkhout writes IPCC Chairman Dr. Dr Hoesung Lee the open letter linked here.

Clintel highlights the following and then details the corruption in the report linked here:

• IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths

• IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C

• IPCC misleads policymakers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario

• Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010

Politics and political orthodoxy have a tendency to ruin everything it touches and that is exactly what it has done within the IPCC. Realist scientists have quit this political performance or are never invited back for subsequent works. The remainder of IPCC members are politically driven and deem themselves impervious to truth.

This has always been the case with the IPCC and almost all United Nations agencies; however, the legacy presses relay every word of the IPCC’s excesses, extremes, and deceptions and subsequently broadcasts onto the world and especially the young, the idealist hell hole they are living in.