IPCC "too sullied to be credible"


Professor Stewart Franks speaks some highly inconvenient truths about the IPCC (reported, amazingly, by the ABC):

Stewart Franks says there is no evidence that carbon dioxide drives global warming and he blames the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for scaring people about a future climate catastrophe.

For the past decade Professor Franks has focussed his research on natural variability in climate as being the driver of extreme droughts and rain events, rather that CO2 emissions.

He says the emails from Kevin Trenberth from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, show fundamental flaws in their methodology, but the public is being kept in the dark.

Professor Franks says he believes the emails support his own argument that natural variability is responsible for warming.

“Now I’ve been criticised for talking about these modes that we’ve barely beginning to understand as somehow being some kind of a denier of climate change or a pure contrarian,” he said.a

“But it is really heartening to see that these scientists actually acknowledge and in fact one scientist went as far as to say ‘What if all the warming we actually see is just natural multi-decadal variability?’

“He then said, ‘They’ll probably kill us’.

“I think we do need an independent and judicial review of the evidence both for and against the likelihood of climate change beyond naturally catastrophic climate variability.

“I must say the IPCC is far too sullied by the leaks and some of the shenanigans that the emails show have be going on.

“It is now too sullied to be credible.” (source)

He’s absolutely right of course. The IPCC has lost the little trust it may once have had, thanks in part to the Climategate emails which reveal an organisation driven by political agenda, happy to silence dissent, disappear inconvenient data, destroy emails and smear critics. This issue was giving me pause for thought only a day or so ago, as I pondered how climate science can be rehabilitated. I actually believe an organisation akin to the IPCC can serve a useful purpose in the climate debate, if and only if it were to be constituted properly. However, this isn’t going to be easy.

For a start, the IPCC has to go, once and for all. Clear the slate and start again. Secondly, any successor organisation should have nothing whatsoever to do with the UN. I’m not entirely sure which global organisation should take its place, but that’s a decision for later. Thirdly, funding should be made a level playing field – sceptics and consensus scientists should compete on equal terms for research grants. Fourthly, either vested interests should be allowed to participate across the board, or they should be excluded completely. Cosying up to WWF whilst slamming “Big Oil” is rank hypocrisy. Finally, the successor organisation must have transparent procedures and processes in place. The IPCC is opaque in its appointment of key personnel and the review procedure for its reports, and this is completely unacceptable.

As I have said many times, I am agnostic on the causes of the 20th century warming. However, I am damn sure that I want to see apolitical, impartial and unbiased science, untainted by environmental agendas, before I am prepared to accept it as gospel. And the IPCC will never, ever be able to meet that requirement.


  1. “Sullied” all right ! Why would a group that is supposed to look at climate appoint a railway engineer as its head, particularly when he proceeds to scam millions of dollars in carbon credits via his company, TERI ?

  2. I congratulate Stewart for his stance on this issue whenever I run into him.

    He is a true academic, able to objectively view all real data at his disposal. No manipulation, no confirmational bias, just pure data analysis, and there are not many others that have his knowledge of this topic, certainly not the likes of Trenberth etc

    Furthermore, he is NOT in the pay of big oil (as the AGW bletheren like to smear). IIRC, the one set of funding he did get was for a student doing research on possible chemical contamination of one of the Blue Mountains rivers.

  3. Nenky L Wibawa via Facebook says:

    The last thing IPCC wants to hear is some credible scientists backed up by solid researches who don’t agree with them. It’s driven by pure political agenda of the left.

  4. Mark Walker says:

    Yes — the IPCC must go – but there is no need to “replace” it with anything. Climate Change such as it is, is what it is, and no “intergovernmental panel” of any kind will be able to affect it. We need to be done with this nonsense.

  5. agw nonsense says:

    When you consider that temperature drives CO2 NOT the reverse and allowing for the 800 year lag it is easy to understand how the temperature can go down and CO2 can still rise (marginally) must be that mythical Medieval Warm Period,You know the one,it was erased from the HOCKEY STICK, remember when they rewrote the HISTORY books.

  6. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    When an organisation is rotten to the core, there is only one way to deal with it. Shut it down.

  7. It’s not just the IPCC that needs to be euthanised but the whole United Nations and it’s attendant bodies.

    While UN Ambassadors stay in 5 star luxury hotels and dine at Michelin Star restaurants, African children starve to dead because of war and famine brought about by hand-wringing diplomats!

  8. I 100% agree with Prof Franks. Unfortunately the ABC and a lot of the rest of the media will ensure that the public continues to be kept in the dark and nothing will change. The IPCC will continue to be regarded as “The Climate Experts” by the average person until a couple of decades from now when the truth will finally prevail.

  9. The scientific method, and a decent peer review process, that should solve many problems.

  10. Certainly in your case, William.

%d bloggers like this: