Member log in

Claptrap science shrouds dark anti-growth agenda


Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert is a must read for anyone interested in the intersection of science, politics and public policy.

Her book is an expose of how the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) operates.

Here’s a little taste.

IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachari told the US Senate that “all rational persons” should be persuaded by the IPCC’s conclusions since his organisation mobilises “the best talent available across the world.”

In fact, the IPCC doesn’t use the best experts. Hence, the now embarrassing IPCC claims that global warming will cause more and stronger hurricanes, fearful rises in sea levels and more malaria.

The IPCC’s 1995 Climate Bible said malaria-transmitting mosquitoes usually don’t survive in areas where winter temperatures drop below 16C. Nonsense. In the 1800s thousands died of malaria in North America and Europe – even in Siberia.

Several of the IPCC lead authors are graduates in their 20s writing outside any expertise they may have. The IPCC chairman is flat out wrong.

Dr Pachauri claims, “So you can’t think of a more transparent process.than what we have in the IPCC.” 

In fact, the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors and no transparent author-selection process or well-defined criteria for author selection. That’s what the UN’s own review of the IPCC found.

Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC’s reckless 2007 claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 or sooner, declaring “The IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the [opposing] data in a decent credible publication. Otherwise, we can just throw it in the dustbin.”

In fact, the IPCC’s claim itself was based on an Indian professor’s unfounded speculation in an email to a journalist.

It turns out 30% of the references in the 2007 Climate Bible are non peer-reviewed. Again, the chairman is wrong.

Dr Pachauri boasts of the “2500 reviewers” that check the Bible. Turns out critical material is added to the assessment reports after the reviews are all done.

He declares, “Whatever we do is available for scrutiny at every stage.”  The all-important IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is rewritten line-by-line by politicians behind closed doors over days.

And get this: the actual report is released weeks after the Summary is released. Pachauri explains that’s because “we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements [made by the politicians in the Summary]”. 

That’s right: the scientific report is “refined” to fit the Summary written by politicians and is then later released. No scrutiny of the process or the changes is allowed.

When convenient, Dr Pachauri puts himself above the political fray, “We in the IPCC do not prescribe any specific action, but action is a must.”

However, he has declared “a radical value shift” is needed and a “new value system” required. “I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it”.

There you have it. A pretend mantle of scientific rigour shrouding a deep and dark social, economic and political agenda.

The IPCC’s head wants a “new value system” and “major structural changes in economic growth and development.” Fair enough. He can argue for whatever he wants. But the argument for a new value system and economic structure shouldn’t be smuggled by the UN under the cloak of so-called climate science. 

But that’s exactly what’s been happening. In the chairman’s own words.

In fact, “climate change is just a part of it”.

It’s hard to believe our nation’s politicians paid any attention to the IPCC, let alone based wealth-sapping policies on the nonsense.

More by Rodney Hide

More on:

Comments and questions

Yes, the IPCC is a disgrace to science.

So, incidentally is the practice of hiding the results of publicly funded research behind private publication paywalls so high as to prevent public scrutiny of the politically motivated claims being made for it. Likewise the practice of hiding the source data collected so it cannot be used for checking the analyses and conclusions.

All this must change to restore scientific integrity to climate science.

IPCC 2000 - Sea level rise of up to 1 Metre by 2010 (sea levels drop by 1 -3mm instead)
IPCC 2004 - Arctic will be "ice free" by 2012 (more ice growth this year, over a greater area and 1.4x larger than 2007's low point)
IPCC 2008 - extreme heat and mild winters for the foreseeable future (2010/2011 - extreme cold and large snow dumps)
IPCC 2012 - "the sun has little to no effect on the Earths climate" - this should be the one sentence that disproves any modicum of credibility that the IPCC should never have had.

What is most annoying about all this is of course the media being so complicite in not challenging the IPCC report in the first place.
The media in most cases just jumps on the Al Gore bandwagon. The are not doing their jobs and wonder why circulation is dropping.
What this country needs is for a Glenn Beck type of commentator to say it like it is and challenge us to look into things for ourselves.
The news organisations should research the facts or claimed facts, tell the people and they should be able to make their own minds up.
What is actually happens is that they take sides and convieniently miss out information.
Things are so bad that Fox news is straight down the middle yet percieved to be right wing due to the fact that all the other news organisations are so left wing. It's like someone six feet tall standing out as very tall amoungst pigmys.
And don't get me started on the leftist, pro green, climate drivell that my kids bring home from state primary school. I guess that's what we get with our universities pumping out the same stuff to the student teachers to indoctrinate our young.

Lots of out of context quotes and two errata that have since been corrected. It's not the scientists that warp the process, it's the politicians, Rodney. There are two undeniable facts:
1. The climate is warming,
2. We are emitting ever increasing volumes of greenhouse gases.
What we do about this is a political process.

You sound knowlegeable...maybe you can help
Someone has told me Tongariro has negated all the climate savings I have made by using my foodtown woven bag in the warehouse. I'm really worried we are all doomed

There is no connection between those two statements.

Nor, in the real world, there is any empirical evidence to connect them.

I disagree. There is hard evidence. The big yellow thing in sky, sometimes known as the sun, shines everyday. Trouble is, its ruddy cold outside and no matter how much I sit in the car revving away...the ruddy place aint getting any warmer.

Nice job, Rodney. It's tremendous to have a famous figure drawing attention to what climate "sceptics" have been saying for years. Nobody draws our attention like someone we know. Well done.

The Nats must by now recognise that the Kiwi in the street pours scorn on the establishment's global warming line and calls it a hoax. There are certainly strong hints in their withdrawal from some of the provisions of the ETS that this is so.

It's a good time to increase the pressure on them to examine the science ignored by their parliamentary committees. Time for NZ again to lead the world, this time in declaring the AGW scare, if not complete nonsense, then at least riddled with too much uncertainty to drive expensive public policy.

Remember, neither the previous Labour government nor our dear Nats performed a proper cost-benefit analysis on the ETS, despite cabinet rules requiring them to do so.


What has a cost benefit analysis got to do with global warming? Heed the warnings or perish. Simple. But it may be too late anyway.

You have evidence that someone alive today will perish as a direct result of global warming?
Do share.

Sorry SimonP. please stop reading only one side to reinforce your views. I read from good sources that the climate is not warming. Try an internet search of the neutral question: is the planet warming or cooling? Also read that CO2 is not effective at climate change. The likely cause is according to CERN, the sun's effects on cosmic rays that governs between 50% to 100% of the climate. Interpret that to mean within 4 years CERN will confirm that climate change is 100% governed by the sun / cosmic rays. So search CERN global climate to get a balanced view.

You are repeating false propaganda:
The science is sound. There are thousands of climate scientists and they are almost unanimous on this.

Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, even though their courageous government still considers it necessary to pay limited lip service to the man-made global warming scam.

If our government really cared about the welfare of New Zealanders it would do the same - but they seem terrified of the left/green luddites.

ps: SimonP - according to even University of East Anglia's infamous and biased "Climategate" climate scientist, the world's climate has not warmed significantly for 15 years, despite record human CO2 emissions. This is verified by satellite measurements that say that the average temperature in the lower troposphere has cooled slightly over the same period. ie The warming has stopped. How does your belief system rationalize that "undeniable" fact?

You are repeating false propaganda:

It's funny how Simon keeps using the word "propaganda" and then redirects us to a global warming propaganda site called "Skeptical Science", which has long lost its neutrality in the affair, to back up his case.

There is evidence that Simon is a gullible fool.

There is no claim of neutrality Andy. Skeptical science was set up by a group of climate scientists to debunk the myths circulated by those who either don't understand the science or have an alternative agenda to push. Unfortunately it is difficult for the general public to distinguish fact from fiction.

Skeptical Science was set up by John Cook who is not a climate scientist. You might be thinking of Real Climate (which is just as biased, in my view, with consistent deletion of comments that don't fit the party line)

you being a member of the general public of course.

Rodney ,
I think you are quite right to frame your comments on a broader front as in

" anyone interested in the intersection of science, politics and public policy. "

I to found the book to be an eye opener to how issues can or could be manipulated to advance a much bigger agenda which clearly the IPCC is doing. The UN and senior people in the IPCC are now quite open about it. ( they talk about a Global Government and wealth redistribution agendas)
The disturbing thing is, the environmental movement has been highjacked by them and most of the well meaning environmentalists do not realise it.

Sorry Ross13 but the so called "environmental movement" was hi-jacked by the communists more than a generation ago.

Just like the Green Party in NZ, whose current leadership is a communist and an anarchist.


The troubling thing is that we have scientists pretending to do science for poltical purpose. These aren't out of context quotes. The entire so-called science of climate change is riddled with it.

It will go down in history as the biggest and most costly scientific fraud ever perpetrated. I just hope the ring leaders will be held to account.

It's perhaps got warmer over the past hundred years. But nothing out of the ordinary. And even the extent of that warming now appears overstated and perhaps nonexistant. Thw planet is coming out of an ice age.

The effect of CO2 in the real world is unknown and is now well recognised as overstated in the climate models. In summary, the AGW hypothesis is bullshit.

Mr Hyde you talk yourself about "writing outside any expertise they may have". What is your qualification to begin analysing climate change? You have many valid points in your article, but please stick to the political side of things.

Really? One requires a qualification to observe that the climate changes?
One would have thought that a decade or two's residence on this planet would suffice in order to be qualified to make this observation.

The issue with the IPCC reports addressed in "delinquent teenager" is that a large part of the WG2 and WG3 chapters are heavily influenced by activist groups - predominantly WWF and Greenpeace. A lot of their input is not actually science.

if you look at the physical science chapters in WG1, there is very little alarmist stuff at all. Most of it is very tenuous.

I think we need to focus on what is wrong with the IPCC process that allows it to be dominated by political activists, not toss out all the science, some of which is sound.

Are you honestly saying that the entire scientific community is perpetrating a fraud?

The entire scientific community is not united behind this fraud.

Cant speak for Rodney but I reckon many in the scientific community are failures in science selling out for whoever / whatever pays the $ and keeps them in a cushy job. Then there are the social engineers who have embraced a philosophy with religious fervour and use their Scientific credentials to lord it over others. No true scientist would ever say "the science is settled" .
The beauty with old age is we can smell the bulldust and this ETS scam has fraud written all over it.

The "entire scientific community" is more divided on IPCC opinions than the public at large. A "Scientific American" survey found that scepticism is directly proportional to scientific literacy.

Out of this "community"maybe 1% are directly concerned with aspects of climate science. Out of that group, perhaps 99.9% have no involvement whatever with original research on the "detection and attribution" of global warming.

Out of the handful who ARE working on attribution, almost all are members of modelling teams. They spend their professional lives programming, tweaking and fine-tuning immensely complex virtual worlds. If their model becomes an "outlier", it will not be selected by the IPCC, so there is a huge incentive to stay in the mainstream.

Where there is disagreement, which applies to most of the major parameters, the participants take a vote based on gut-feeling. All are then expected to get behind the consensus.

All this has no relation to the type of science which has won strong community trust of scientists over previous centuries.

Fair point but I was talking about what has been observed thus far, not what will happen in the future. The purpose of modelling is to try and work out what might/could/will happen if we continue to increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. By all means critique the models, the climate is a vastly complex non-linear system.

The big flaw in the models is the assumption that the earth is warming.

If temperatures have risen why then no rise in sea levels? Even without melting ice thermal expansion should have raised ocean levels. This has not happened, therefore sea temperatures haven't altered and ipso facto neither has atmospheric.

Sea levels have risen and they continue to rise although not uniformly across the globe.

"not uniformly" this is simply due to plate tectonics whereby the alarmist watermelons misrepresent rising sea levels when in fact the land is actually sinking.

SimonP: no - just a few. But they are a critical few. I have just completed Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion. That's clear documented phoney science by a critical few for political purpose and for funding and status. It's a truly shocking story. That hockey stick is snake oil. And the authors know that it is.

Since we have had university's those "scientists" who can not find private employment have been "successfully" selling snake oil theories to politicians for "putting a chop on their table".
When this (global warming) finally gets busted they will simply dream up another one. *sigh*

Rodney, your idiotic, fact-free diatribe does nothing but show why ACT died under your disgraceful "leadership".

Rob Taylor

You obviously have not read the book Rodney has based his article on. I suggest you do --it is one of most highly referenced books I have read. By that I mean every comment and point made is backed up by a reference --it is all fact. ( NB The book is not about AGW as such but about the IPCC --how it was set up , how it operates , how it manipulates things to suit its agenda etc)

Wow - what venom, maybe it would be more effective to accuse him of heresay and he will burn like the rest of us in a slightly warming climate.

Rob Taylor, if you continue to defame me on internet blogs by referring to me as a rent boy, rapist, child molester, etc, and doing this whilst posting my full name and contact details, I will take legal action against you.

Science is indivisible; you can’t choose which bits to believe in and which to deny, as the foundational principles and methods are the same. The likes of Rodney Hide and John Roughan remind me of those who refused to attempt to understand Einstein’s relativity theories on the grounds they were “Jewish science”.

The foundation of global warming is quantum field theory, which also provides the physical basis for the computer chip that enables you to read this online. Is the internet a "hoax" also, you blind fools?

Problem is the science has been bastardised and many with so called science expertise are liars and hypocrites willing to commit scientific fraud rather than evidential proof.

Do you have any evidential proof of this statement?

and by the by, intellectual gamesmanship / snobbery is so yesterday.

I suspect Freeman Dyson knows a bit more about quantum physics than you and he thinks CAGM is crap.

And if you actually knew any climate science you wouldn't be parroting such nonsense.

Rob Taylor - Your references to Jewish Science are somewhat ironic since it is precisely the intolerant left wing liberal fascism that you appear to support that is shutting down debate and keeping out dissenting voices from challenging the politically correct mantra.

Rather than just ranting on and abusing those who don't agree with you, why don't you point out which bits of Hide's article are wrong, and explain why?

Yeah, as Rodney says, recent man made climate change all a big fraud, a giant conspiracy.

Thousands of scientists all over the world are in on it. Every single one of them is part of a hard left socialist plot to get our taxes.

NASA are lying to us.
NOAA are lying top us.
The Royal Society is lying to us.
National Academy is lying to us.

Heck every single scientific institution in the planet are in on it.

And their families.

Oh, and that all the scientific journals are in on it goes without saying.

Rodney will tell us how it is all achieved any day soon.

Just wait.

The Royal Society and The National Academy have never published a single scientific paper on climate science. They are 100% reliant upon the IPCC Assessment Reports for their corporate opinions.

However, they are both members of the Inter-Academy Council which issued a scathing report on the deficiencies of the IPCC methodology, and suggested that Pachauri step down as chairman. The IPCC accepted those criticisms and undertook to do something about them after its next political summary (2013) and scientific report (2014) are published.

What scathing report is that Stan? so I can bamboozle the warmists with it. They (those lying warmists) keep claiming both those bodies support the IPCC and also the overwhelming majority of its conclusions. So a link please would be helpful.

Have you got any good links to prove NASA are lying to us about climate change, you know, deliberately skewing satellite data and stuff.

It's hard to believe but those scoundrels at NASA defer to the IPCC on their website!

Just read the book. Then you will know something.

This is Richard Christie's standard line which he repeats on all blogs

Anon: I have no special expertise to talk about global warming. But since when did you need a licence to think critically and reach your own conclusions on subjects upon which you may not have done a PhD in and produced 300 peer-reviewed papers.

After reading the Hockey Stick Illusion I suspect a PhD in climate science and 300 peer-reviewed papers may mean you qualify to the priesthood -- but not science.

I am a Popperian. Science is the critical method and objective tests -- not argumentum ad verecundiam.

Rodney - you might want to read this article in the Washington Times by Patrick Moore, formerly of Greenpeace

"The "green" movement has not only become more hard line, they have also become irrational and fanatical."

He basically

Rodney, if you are indeed interested in thinking critically / objectively, I challenge you to read Michael Mann's book "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars", from which you may actually learn something about climate change from one of the pre-eminent researchers in the field.

Yeah, right...

Rob - Have you read Mann's book? Can you show me where he deals with the criticisms expressed in Hockey Stick Illusion? (Hint: nowhere)

Would you like to comment on the fact that the recent "convert" to your "cause" is none other than Richard Muller who also expresses the same reservations about Mann's hockey stick as McIntyre and Montford?

After climategate I wouldn't trust Mann and his cronies to tell me my cup of tea was warm.
They were caught red (excuse the pun) handed trying to cover up their lies and it is stunning that we are actually still going on about this now.
The whole IPCC report should have been taken out the back and set alight, Kyoto abandoned too.

It's quite good to see Rodney backing the sceptic camp increasing being deserted by all but idiots and madmen. He is quite successfully dooming himself to support from only the dwindling number of people who are quite incapable of thinking for themselves and only subscribe to what Fox News tells them. If you don't believe in climate change Rodney I suggest you buy some prime property in the Maldives and sell how well that investment works out when it is underwater.

Rodney clearly accepts that climate change is an immutable fact.
And he accepts that science is necessarily sceptical.
Fox News is not a feature In Godzone.
And your reference to the Maldives betrays your ignorance of the reality.
However I agree with your comment that the sceptic camp is increasing. The truth will always prevail.
i suggest remedial reading for you Jo.

Maldives - ha !
I wonder if the sea level there might reach the height they survived in the 17th century nor the storm surges of the mid 1800's and all that without the well proven Dutch dyke solution. Still like everything if you scream and holler loud enough someone might chuck you some $$ so who can blame the Maldives for crying wolf.

The only thing going under water in the Maldives is their finances and credibility. Yours too.

Maldives ---isn't that where they building several extra airports to met the extra tourists needs. I'm sure if they really thought the islands were going to disappear they wouldn't be making the investment.

Seems to me the real problem here is those (the SimonP's of the world)
who cannot refrain from making bold, unsupported statements, or at best quoting others doing the same, that the rest of us are expected to just blindly accept, and the politicians largely in pursuit of their own ends do.
Go for it Rodney. More voices that lead to questioning the ICC propaganda machine the better. Maybe the answar will then out.