IPCC and UNFCCC
The
I
ntergovernmental
P
anel
on
C
limate
C
hange
(IPCC)
[1]
is
an
intergovernmental
body
of
the
United
Nations,
dedicated
to
provide
the
world
with
an
objective,
scientific
view
of
climate
change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.
It
was
established
in
1988
by
the
W
orld
M
eteorological
O
rganization
(WMO)
and
the
U
nited
N
ations
E
nvironment
P
rogramme
(UNEP),
and
later
endorsed
by
the
United
Nations
General
Assembly.
Membership
is
open
to
all
members
of
the
WMO
and
UN.
The
IPCC
produces
re
-
ports
that
contribute
to
the
work
of
the
U
nited
N
ations
F
ramework
C
onvention
on
C
limate
C
hange (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change.
The
objective
of
the
UNFCCC
is
to
"
stabilize
greenhouse
gas
concentrations
in
the
atmosphere
at
a
level
that
would
prevent
dangerous
anthropogenic
(human-induced)
interference
with
the
climate
system
".
But
this
objective
emanates
from
the
assumption
that
almost
only
G
reen-
H
ouse
G
ases
(GHG)
are
responsible
for
an
observed
temperature
increase
since
the
end
of
the
‘Little
Ice
Age’
at
1850,
and
that
for
an
inclining
concentration
of
these
gases
mostly
fossil
fuel
emissions
are
liable.
Therefore,
the
UNFCCC
and
as
its
acting
body
the
IPCC
is
primarily
focusing
on
human
emis
-
sions
and
tries
to
explain
all
global
warming
exclusively
by
human
activities,
while
any
natural
variations are almost completely excluded.
As
a
consequence,
also
most
of
the
state-sponsored
climate
research
was
concentrating
only
on the human influence and largely neglecting natural variations.
The
IPCC
does
not
accomplish
original
research,
nor
does
it
monitor
climate
or
related
pheno
-
mena
itself.
Rather,
thousands
of
‘experts’
from
political
and
environmental
organizations
con
-
tribute
on
a
voluntary
basis
to
writing
and
reviewing
reports,
which
are
mostly
captured
by
the
go
vernments with
out any larger modifications.
From
selectively
screening
the
climate
literature
the
IPCC
and
related
institutions
conclude
that
climate
science
is
settled
and
that
97%
of
climate
scientists
or
even
more
would
make
humans
responsible for a climate change.
The So-Called AGW-Consensus
The
state
ment
of
settled
science
and
a
scientific
consensus
on
A
nthropogenic
G
lobal
W
arm
ing
(AGW)
goes
back
to
evaluations
like
that
of
Cook
et
al.
[2],
who
examined
11,944
climate
abstracts
from
1991–2011
in
the
peer-reviewed
literature
matching
the
topics
‘global
climate
change’
or
‘global
warming’.
They
found
that
66.4%
of
abstracts
expressed
no
position
on
AGW,
32.6%
endorsed
AGW,
0.7%
rejected
AGW
and
0
.3%
were
uncertain
about
the
cause
of
global
warming (see left graphic).
In
their
further
analysis
then
the
authors
only
consider
those
abstracts,
which
explicitly
or
im
-
plicitly
ex
press
ed
a
position
on
AGW
(
32.6%
en
dorsed
+
0.7%
rejected
+
0.3%
uncertain
-->
total
33.6%
),
and
from
this
they
conclude
that
97.1%
(
32.6/33.6
%)
endorsed
the
con
sensus
position that hu
mans are causing global warming (right graphic).
Independent
of
the
fact
that
in
science
a
hypothesis
is
not
confirmed
or
rejected
by
voting
or
by
a
consen
sus,
in
such
calculation
the
lar
gest
group
of
climate
scientists
(66.4%),
which
did
not explicitly ex
press a position on AGW, is completely embezzled.
It
is
adventurous
how
Cook
et
al.
-
and
with
them
the
IPCC
-
infer
from
such
manipulated
data
a
97%
AGW-consensus
of
climate
scien
tists.
The
authors
generalize
selectively
dedu
ced
data
from
abstracts
partially
written
more
than
20
years
ago,
and
mostly
published
to
present
a
scientific
result
and
not
to
express
a
position
on
AGW.
Indeed,
some
of
these
scien
tist
may
also have suppor
ted the AGW-hypothesis, but others not.
A
detailed
scrutiny
of
Cook‘s
data
even
shows
the
exact
opposite
of
a
consensus.
M.
Fiedler
[3]
looked
more
carefully
to
the
original
data
and
found
that
from
the
11,944
abstracts
just
64
explicitly
endorsed
and
quantified
AGW
as
the
dominant
reason
for
the
climate
change
(50+%).
This
is
not
more
than
0.54%
of
all
abstracts.
922
abstracts
(7.72%)
explicitly
endorsed,
but
did
not
quantify
or
mini
mize
it,
and
2,910
(24.36%)
only
implicitly
endorsed
AGW.
All
the
others
had
no
position
or
were
rejecting
AGW.
The
only
thing
we
can
definitely
learn
from
such
investigation
is
that
32%
of
all
abstracts
concede
(explicitly
or
implicitly)
some
smaller
fraction
of
anthropogenic
global
warming,
and
only
0.54%
hold
humans
mainly
or
alone
responsible
for
global
warming.
So,
it
is
a
willful
deception
of
the
public
and
the
politi
cians
to
deduce
from
such kind of investigations any scientific con
sensus.
An
even
worse
evaluation
is
presented
by
Powell
[4],
who
assumes
that
the
extent
of
a
con
sensus
can
be
determined
by
the
number
of
scientists,
who
contradict
the
AGW-hypo
-
thesis.
With
this
method
he
finds
5
surveys
in
54,195
articles
and
derives
from
this
an
average
con
sen
sus of 99.99%.
Applying
this
method,
right
away
we
will
find
a
100%
consensus
for
the
hypothesis
that
witches
are
responsible
for
global
warming,
and
bur
ning
of
witches
is
an
ap
propriate
means
to
protect
humans
against
disasters
and
climate
cata
strophes.
This
will
be
the
result
of
screening
the
peer-reviewed
litera
ture,
since
nowadays
no
serious
article
can
be
found,
where
burning
of
witches
as
adequate
mea
sure
against
potential
threads
is
gravely
discussed
or
men
tioned,
and
therefore
also
no
ex
pert
can
be
found
who
con
tra
dicts
such
scenario,
which
nowhere
is
considered and which goes back to the middle age.
This
kind
of
investigations
is
absolutely
nonsense,
and
it
is
highly
dis
qualifying
that
such
logics
has
meanwhile
been
taken
over
by
the
German
Govern
ment
to
proclaim
a
99%
AGW-con
-
sensus of climate scientists (Bundestags-Drucksache 19/12631 [5])!
IPCC‘s New Perception
All
this
is
no
longer
real
science
and
objective
consultancy
of
politicians.
Rather
the
IPCC
itself
converted
to
a
political
organization,
which
disseminates
climate
religion
and
has
turned
aside
from
serious
climate
science.
Their
thousand
pages
long
Assessment
Reports,
in
particular
the
chapter
S
ummary
for
P
olicy
M
akers
(SPM)
demonstrates,
how
the
IPCC
modified
its
original
mission
from
consul
ting
governments
to
an
active
political
organization.
The
re
ports
are
dri
-
ven
by
an
extreme
form
of
fear
based
activism
and
speculation
instead
of
presen
ting
settled
climate
facts.
They
are
no
longer
scientific
reports
but
converted
to
political
state
ments
with
the
essence
to
convince
politicians
and
media
that
any
observed
climate
change
is
only
man-
made and natural effects have no influence on the climate.
We
know,
declarations
of
a
forthcoming
climate
catastrophe
are
most
attentively
recognized
by
the
public
and
politicians.
To
some
extent
this
even
goes
along
with
end
time
hysterics,
as
this
could
be
observed
with
prognoses
for
a
population
explosion
and
the
feared
starvation
crisis
or
the
forest
destruction
in
the
80s.
But
serious
institutions
and
reliable
climate
scientists
do
not
further
invigorate
such
tendencies
or
dramatize
speculations
that
create
a
religious
war
in
our
society
and
a
polarization
between
industrialized
and
developing
countries
with
claims
for
guilt
and
expia
tion
(see
e.g.
requests
for
a
deed
of
partnership:
The
Great
Transformation
[6]).
Serious
science
concentrates
on
factual
research
which
can
confirm
or
dismiss
a
theo
-
retical prediction.
Therefore, it is high time for a fundamental amendment of the climate organizations.
This demand is strongly supported by many climate scientists and experts, see e.g.:
•
Letter to the US President and Petition to withdraw from United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed by 310 international scientists, Lindzen et al.,
February 23, 2017 [7].
•
REAL climate science shows Trump was right to Exit Paris, Declaration of scientists as re-
sponse to a letter of MIT President Reif to the MIT community, in which Reif criticizes Presi-
dent Trump’s decision to exit the Paris climate agreement, Marko et al., 2017 [8].
•
There is No Climate Emergency, Pan-European Declaration of Independent Scientists, sign-
ed by more than 700 scientists of 24 countries, sent to the UN and UNFCCC,
G. Berkhout et al., September 2019 [9].
References
1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):
https://www.ipcc.ch/
2.
J. Cook et al.: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,
Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 024024 (7pp), doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
3.
Markus Fiedler: Die 97% Einigkeit unter Wissenschaftlern, die es nie gegeben hat,
https://markus-fiedler.de/2020/01/02/die-97-einigkeit-unter-wissenschaftlern-die-es-nie-
gegeben-hat/
4.
J. L. Powell: The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters, Bulletin of Science,
Technology & Society, Vol. 36, issue 3, pp 157-163 (2016),
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467617707079
5.
Bundestags-Drucksache 19/12631 vom 23.08.2019: Antwort der Bundesregierung auf kleine
Anfrage der AfD - Drucksache 19/12228
6.
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU):
Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation - 2011
7.
R. Lindzen et al., Petition to withdraw from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, Letter to the US President Donald Trump, February 23, 2017.
8.
I. Marko, J. S. Armstrong, W. M. Briggs, K. Green, H. Harde, D. R. Legates, Ch. Monckton of
Brenchley, W. Soon, REAL climate science shows Trump was right to Exit Paris, June 21, 2017.
9.
G. Berkhout et al., There is no climate emergency, Pan-European Declaration of independent
scientists (Climate Intelligence Foundation - CLINTEL), September 2019.
Cover Note to UN and UNFCCC
Physics & Climate