Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

The One Reason the UN Climate Change Panel Cannot Be Trusted

Comment period for the next UN climate report has begun.

As of July 31, climate experts from around the world are providing comments to the authors of a new special report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Entitled “Global Warming of 1.5°C”, the report will address:

… the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways.

The IPCC claims that:

The purpose of this expert review is to help ensure that the report provides a balanced and comprehensive assessment of the latest scientific findings.

In reality, the report will almost certainly be highly biased, and will ignore scientific findings that do not conform with the UN’s man-made climate change disaster scenario.

There are a number of reasons to expect such an outcome from any IPCC process.

First, consider the panel’s mandate. Most people think that the IPCC studies all climate change, and indeed, in response to the direction of UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of December 6, 1988, that was the original purpose of the panel. But the IPCC itself admits that that is no longer the case.

Today, the IPCC's role is defined differently in “Principles Governing IPCC Work”:

[T]o assess … the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of  human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. (emphasis added)

With this narrow focus, if human-induced climate change is found to be trivial, then there would be no reason for the IPCC to exist. The IPCC will therefore always support the climate scare, no matter what their examination of the science reveals.

The IPCC’s mandate change is apparently the result of the definition of “climate change” given by the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Convention asserted:

Climate Change means 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.

 Since the IPCC “Principles” state that the panel “shall concentrate its activities ... on actions in support of the UNFCCC process,” then clearly the IPCC had to adopt this unduly restricted definition -- and this means that policymakers, not scientists, lead the process.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorology professor Richard Lindzen was not exaggerating when he said that the supposed scientific consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Indeed, this was clear from the very start. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report stated:

[I]t is not possible at this time to attribute all, or even a large part, of the observed global-mean warming to the enhanced greenhouse effect on the basis of the observational data currently available.