Misbehaviour Page 5

“With the creation of the IPCC and with the help of the Global Warming Campaign, we now have the best chance to re-distribute wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries.”  John Houghton 

THE IPCC

History

The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) worked together for years to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Although there were some environmentalists in each organisation, Green staff dominated and controlled both organisations.

Bert Bolin and John Houghton were the two men responsible for setting up the IPCC.  Houghton had come from the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU), later to become the infamous organisation with the “Emailgate” scandal.  Bert Bolin was a Swedish Professor of Meteorology.

Bert Bolin was to serve as the first Chairman of the IPCC from 1988-1997.  John Houghton was to serve as Chairman or co-Chairman of the IPCC’s Scientific Assessment Working Group from 1988 to 2002.

In 1988, when the staff were gathered to celebrate the newly created IPCC, John Houghton made two points in a speech to the staff.  First, the IPCC had been set up to monopolise the information given to all the countries in the World about climate change.  Second, it was important for the ‘Cause’ [His words] that both the IPCC’s reputation and the new alarming global warming campaign were protected.  He finished his speech by stating;

“With the creation of the IPCC and with the help of the Global Warming Campaign, we now have the best chance to re-distribute wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries.”

For environmentalists, this statement might have come as a surprise.  Surely the aim of the IPCC was to:

•           Stop or reverse global warming,

•           Prevent catastrophic weather events and sea level rises,

•           Save the human race from extinction, or

•           Save the planet and the environment etc. etc..

No. On the outside it might appear that way, but internally the Greens had a very clear social engineering goal to redistribute wealth.

However at the time, environmentalists reassured sceptics that the United Nations would not allow this redistribution of wealth, and the newly created mandate for the IPCC would ensure that this would not happen.  This turned out to be a naïve view.

Note, that once again, this is a good example of the difference between the Greens and the environmentalists.

So, let us glance at the IPCC’s Mandate before it is studied in-depth later.

The Mandate

For the first 25 years the IPCC had the following Mandate.  Anyone who has worked in a bureaucratic organisation would know that a significant amount of time and effort would have been spent agonising over the words of this Mandate – especially as more than one hundred countries would need to agree with it.

“The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers [Governments] and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change.  The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.  Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.  IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors.  They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.“

However, like all mandates, most organisations do not set up any system to monitor the organisation’s performance to ensure it behaves within its mandate.  The IPCC was no different and although the Mandate sounds good, from day one the IPCC had no intention of following its Mandate.

More importantly, there was one major problem missed by all those who reviewed this Mandate. The following was a phrase inserted in the middle of the Mandate that introduced a damaging bias.

“relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

In the years before 1988, few had heard of man-made catastrophic global warming – it was to be the new Green campaign to replace the campaign that told the World that an Ice Age would destroy the Planet by the year 2000.

So here, in 1988, was the IPCC that was going to investigate climate change but, on day one, was being told that climate change was caused by humans. To re-emphasise that point, the focus of the IPCC was to only investigate human induced climate change – if it did exist.

In cruder terms, the IPCC was told “We know what the problem is, your job is now to go out and prove it“. Whereas, if the IPCC were indeed to be “comprehensive and objective“, a better direction might have been:

• Is the climate changing? (Self obvious since the climate is in a continual state of change.)
• What is “normal” climate change?
• What causes normal climate change?
• Is anything abnormal happening in the climate? and if so
• What is causing this abnormal climate change?

This would have had the IPCC looking at over 40 “theories” on what causes global warming and cooling rather than looking at only one theory – the Green’s modified greenhouse gas theory that might cause global warming. More importantly, a baseline of what is “normal climate change” would have been established, so any abnormality could be clearly identified.

Identifying this bias helps us understand what happened in the first two IPCC’s Reports

The Beginning Sets the Stage

Contrary to the expectations of the IPCC’s Greens, in the first two IPCC Reports, the scientists made it very clear that there was no evidence that Man was having any impact on the climate. This science was accepted in the first report but the Green IPCC staff were not about to let this happen in the second report.

After eight years of work, this was unacceptable to the Greens for two reasons. If these findings were accepted, the IPCC would be closed down since the “human induced climate change” it was meant to investigate did not exist. Worse still, this would be a fatal blow to the Greens’ new campaign of man made catastrophic global warming and the so called “science” that supported it. The Greens would not achieve any of their aims.

So, the IPCC’s non-scientific administrative staff reversed the scientists’ conclusions in the second IPCC report, to say that Man was causing catastrophic climate change. The Green PR machine reinforced these findings telling the World the “smoking gun had been found” and the “fingerprint of Man had been discovered“. Note the forensic science connotations used to mislead and support what was an IPCC lie.

To date, the IPCC has produced five reports (1990, 1996, 2001, 2007 and 2014).  Like many similar large reports a separate summary report (Summary for Policymakers) is produced with the main report (Working Group Report).  This makes good sense if the summary truly reflects the underlying main report.  Not surprisingly, the summary report is more widely read than the main report. 

The compilation of the main scientific report appears to follow a logical process.  The report is broken up into chapters and working parties are formed for each chapter.  Information is collected for each chapter separately from a wide variety of sources.  Each chapter has a lead author who distills all the information received from hundreds of scientists.  Once written, each chapter is reviewed.

Obviously, there is a significant amount of scientific input in the main report which we would normally expect to be good science.  Most, but not all, of the authors of the main report are scientists. 

In contrast the summary report, to be read by the politicians and their decision makers, is written by IPCC political staff, some of whom do not understand the science that they are attempting to distill into a summary report. 

The political input for both reports could be seen from a statement from the UN’s web site when it said:

“Governments participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate in the review of IPCC Reports.”

Although we might have started to hear some alarm bells, this process on the face of it looks sound.  Looks can be deceiving.  The first alarm bell rings when we find out that unlike any other large reports, the summary report is not released with the main report, but released three months early.

Without a blush of embarrassment, the IPCC tells us that this delay is required to allow them to go back and amend the main (scientific) report so that it matches the (political) summary report that gained the support of all the political participants before it was published. 

So, the “scientific” main report must match the “political” summary report – rather than the summary report reflecting the main report.  Yet we are told the reports are based on science – not politics.

Then, Sir Humphrey of “Yes Minister” would be proud of the IPCC’s circular argument to keep the pretence of scientific respectability robust in this political process by stating (UN web site) that:

When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.

This sounds like: “You can change as much of the science as you want for political purposes, but in return you will support our claim that these reports have “scientific legitimacy”. 

Steven McIntyre shows his disdain for this process.

“So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1 report) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary.

Unbelievable.  Can you imagine what the securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion.  Words fail me,” McIntyre explained January 2007.

Climate data analyst Stephen McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org, is one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph. (McIntyre had also harshly critiqued the UN IPCC’s process)

We might think “The politicians would only make minor adjustments, a little bit of spin here and there.”  Unfortunately, that is not so, as the following example shows.

“That statement [that the IPCC had found a “human fingerprint”] was inserted in the executive summary of the IPCC’s 1996 report for political not scientific reasons.  Then the “science volume” was edited to take out different statements from five lead authors – all of which had been approved by the panel’s scientific consultants – specifically saying no such “human fingerprint” had been found”

“The author of the science chapter, a US government employee, publicly admitted (reported, “A Major Deception on Global Warming”, Wall Street Journal, 12 June 1996) making the scientifically indefensible “back room changes”.  He was under pressure from top US government officials to do so.”

Unstoppable Global Warming, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Rowan and Littlefield Publishing, 2007, page 10. T

The Wealth Redistribution

So what about the wealth redistribution goal? Jump forward to 2013 where a new Australian government has been voted in to try and reduce government spending in an attempt to stop an out of control growth in Australia’s national debt. To her annoyance, Julie Bishop the new Foreign Affairs Minister, finds the outgoing government has left her an additional spending bill of 900 million dollars.

This money was to be given to the Greens in the IPCC/UNEP for distribution to poor nations as compensation for all the “serious damage being caused by man made global warming“. Let us pause here and look at what had happened up to 2013.

• The IPCC’s prediction of a 3-5 degree rise in global temperatures by 2000, had not occurred. Only a natural warming of 0.3 degrees had been measured.
• The predicted sea level rises of 0.8 to 20 metres had not occurred.
• The increase in the number and severity of catastrophic storms had not occurred, and had decreased.
• Although CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere had continued to rise and contrary to the IPCC predictions, their own Green scientists had advised that natural global warming stopped in 1990-1996 and was not expected to restart again until 2025-2030.
• The UNEP’s prediction of 50 million climate refugees by 2010 had failed as there have been no significant sea level rises.
• And all the more alarming predictions of four billion people dying, the human race becoming extinct by 2000 etc. etc. had also failed.

So, what exactly was the “serious damage being caused by man made global warming” that needed compensation? There was none. This is pure wealth redistribution hiding behind the skirts of an imagined ‘Henny Penny’ tale of man made catastrophic global warming.

THE IPCC MISBEHAVING

We have allowed ourselves to be misled and deceived by the IPCC because of our growing irrationality and our closed minds, combined with an inability to critically examine what we are told. We no longer delve into an issue to any depth, relying more on labels and personalities that are draped around an issue.

Looking at the following “sales pitch” explains how easily we are encouraged to blindly and unthinkingly believe something without checking.

The Sales Pitch

When the IPCC is mentioned in broadcasts, newspapers, and books it is portrayed as a paragon of scientific truth and authority.  Here are some direct quotes from people describing the IPCC:

• phenomenally successful,
•  a remarkable history of accomplishments,
•  there is not a parallel on this planet, in any field of endeavour,
•  its place in the history books is clear,
•  if the IPCC says something, you had better believe it (Professor Flannery),
• the IPCC has shown us the way (Time magazine),
•  It is chapter and verse, it is Holy Writ (Irish Independent),
•  most scientists have been awed by the IPCC’s deliberate work (New York Times), and
• The greatest feat of global scientific cooperation ever seen – utterly unique and authoritative (UK Guardian).

After reading all those glowing comments about the IPCC, we would have to believe everything they say without thinking at all. Or should we?

Reading 5.5.1 is an excerpt from Laframboisie’s book “The Delinquent Teenager” (Page 7-9, and 192) which expands on the “sales pitch” and explains why we wish to believe this deceit.

Are They Really That Good?

Instead of being impressed and believing the labels, shouldn’t we at least look at the performance of the IPCC and all the predictions that are based on the so called “solid science” that they are “selling” to us. We have already done that on the previous web pages and we have found their performance has been woeful with their predictions having 5-15 fold errors.

We need to remind ourselves in Reading 5.5.2 of all the failed predictions based on the “solid science” sold to us from the IPCC.

Instead of being impressed by the “Sales Pitch” without thinking, we find that the IPCC is not good at all – their science and their predictions are lousy! What has caused this?

Top Scientists and Best Experts?

The people who write IPCC reports are the “crème de la crème“. Everyone says so. Rajendra Pachauri, the Chairman of the IPCC from 2002-2015, tells us this repeatedly. In 2007 he explained to a newspaper how his organization selects individuals to help write the Climate Bible:

“These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of
publications, on the research that they have done…They are people who are at the top of their
profession…“

Two years later, when testifying before a committee of the US Senate, Pachauri argued that “all rational persons” should be persuaded by the IPCC’s conclusions since his organization mobilizes “the best talent available across the world.“

What isn’t explained in all this sales talk and labels is the pre-requisite before anyone is allowed to be heard in the IPCC – they must believe in “The Green Cause” (Their words, not the authors). Whenever a top scientist in a field does not believe in the “Green Cause” they will be replaced by someone who does believe – often by those with little expertise.

Should we consider the following people “the best in their field‘ as described above?

• Richard Klein, now a Dutch geography professor, is a classic example. In 1992 Klein turned 23, completed a Masters degree, and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, at the tender age of 25, he found himself serving as an IPCC lead author. Klein’s online biography tells us that, since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports. On three of those occasions, beginning in 1997, he served as a coordinating lead author. This means that Klein was promoted to the IPCC’s most senior author role at age 28 – six years prior to the 2003 completion of his PhD.
• Laurens Bouwer is currently employed by an environmental studies institute at the VU University Amsterdam. In 1999-2000, he served as an IPCC lead author before earning his Masters in 2001. How can a young man without even a Masters degree become an IPCC lead author? Good question. Nor is it the only one. Bouwer’s expertise is in climate change and water resources. Yet the chapter for which he first served as a lead author was titled Insurance and Other Financial Services. It turns out that, during part of 2000, Bouwer was a trainee at Munich Reinsurance Company. This means the IPCC chose as a lead author someone who a) was a trainee, b) lacked a Masters degree, and c) was still a full decade away from receiving his 2010 PhD.
• Lisa Alexander was a research assistant at Australia’s Monash University. After earning her PhD in 2009, she was hired by another Aussie university – which noted in its announcement that she had already “played a key role” in both the 2001 and 2007 editions of the Climate Bible. (She was a contributing author the first time, and a lead author the second time.). The IPCC selected its 2001 authors during 1999. This means its leadership decided that Alexander was a world-class expert 10 years before she, too, had earned her doctorate.
• Sari Kovats, currently a lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is an even more egregious example. She didn’t earn her PhD until 2010. Yet back in 1994 – 16 years prior to that event and three years before her first academic paper was published – Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health. In total, Kovats has been an IPCC lead author twice and a contributing author once – all long before she’d completed her PhD.
• One of Kovats’ health chapter colleagues was an American named Jonathan Patz. He earned a Masters degree in Public Health in 1992 and had his first academic paper published in late 1995. Yet in 1994, the IPCC judged his credentials so impressive he was appointed one of its lead authors. Given the involvement of both Kovats and Patz, Paul Reiter’s description of the IPCC’s 1995 health chapter as amateurish starts to make sense. Rather than recruiting real experts like Reiter, the IPCC enlisted young, inexperienced, non-experts instead. But they did believe in the “cause”

The experience of the youngsters above is neither broad nor deep, and most wouldn’t consider them as the best scientists in the World. If they were merely performing administrative tasks that would be one thing. But the IPCC has long relied on their “expert judgment”.

Reading 5.5.3 expands on the lack of experience of those believing in “the cause” and gives examples of experts excluded because they did not believe in “the cause“. Also, some are not scientists at all, and others are Green activists who would have difficulty convincing anyone of their objectivity.

Gold Standard Science?

If you are trying to “sell” a ‘Henny Penny’ tale to the public and claim that it is based on science, you cannot afford to have anyone look at that science. Your campaign needs to mislead and deceive the citizens to ensure none of them investigate the science. There has to be several ways of distracting anyone from looking at the science.

At the beginning of the global warming campaign, the World was told that the science was settled and all the scientists agree. So there was no need to investigate the science. This first distraction worked well.

As the campaign unfolded, the next distraction was to fabricate events so people believed that the predictions made by “all the scientists” were coming true. Once again this meant that there was no need to look at he science because it must be right for the predictions to be coming true. However, this could only last so long.

Because the ‘tale’ talked about the “planet being doomed” and “the extinction of the human race“, these predictions had to be terrifying but, as time past, it became obvious that the predictions were failing. Temperature were not rising by degrees but by tenths of a degree. Rather than seeing sea levels rise by metres, any rises were measured in millimetres.

The deceit to be undertaken by the IPCC was significant, as the IPCC was presenting the science that was meant to prove the impossible – that the “Henny Penny” tale was based on solid science.

First, failed predictions were never discussed or explained, but new predictions were always made. As the number and size of the prediction failures were increasing, the IPCC scientists, using self assessment rather than looking at their predictions, were telling the readers that their confidence in their science was increasing. Another clever distraction.

By using the scientific methodology, the best indication that the science might be good was through replication. Using the detailed description of the original scientist’s work other scientists would repeat the experiment to see if the same results could be obtained. Both the IPCC and individual climate scientists often refused to release the details of their work which prevented their work being tested through replication. Another distraction to hide the failed science.

Instead they hid behind the label “Peer Review” claiming that their work had been peer reviewed and then incorrectly asserting that this proved their science was solid.

Peer review does not check the science. It starts from a position of assuming that what the scientist claims he did was what he actually did. Based on this fragile assumption, the work is examined to see if was logically put together and, if so, whether the results obtained proved what the scientist claimed it proved. Peer review could not identify scientific malpractice.

This final distraction worked well for those who rely on labels and personalities rather than looking at an issue in any depth. When people looked behind the peer review label, the facade of ‘solid science’ crumbled – which was not surprising as no science can support any ‘Henny Penny” tale.

Reading 5.5.4 explains the IPCC’s use of peer review as a distraction to divert peoples’ attention away from the failing science.

The Mandate

We now return to the Mandate and spend the rest of this web page explaining why the IPCC’s performance is so lousy. We look at the “Sales Pitch” labels in the Mandate and compare them with reality in different areas . The two never match.

The remainder of this page will have several readings which show that the IPCC is not following its Mandate which is repeated below.

Most of these readings will show that the IPCC is failing to meet its mandate in those areas highlighted in a red font. However, before presenting those readings there will be readings where the IPCC does not have any science at all to back up their claims made publicly or in their reports.

The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers [Governments] and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change.  The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.  Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.  IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors.  They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

Both the IPCC and the Green Movement sell their message while hiding behind the skirts of science. In a similar fashion as Scientology, their ideas are said to be backed by science – they aren’t. The Greens’ public relations people use several impressive labels to show that it is not only science but it is the best science in the World. So we hear that the science is “gold standard”, the “best in the World”, “rigorously peer reviewed” and their scientists are always described as “leading international scientists” or other impressive labels.

All this is marketing hype used to deceive us.

Sometimes there is no science behind their views. At worst, an overheard comment at a cocktail party was reported as science. Papers written by non- scientists (i.e. by Green activists) are labelled science. And finally assertions made by Green scientists are treated as science, often at odds with a significant amount of science.

Ignoring the Science

The IPCC’s hurried acceptance of Mann’s corrupt “Hockey Stick” Paper without reviewing his work is the most egregious example of the IPCC ignoring any science that did not support the ‘Green Cause’. Mann’s findings rewrote climate history and removed both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.

There were over sixty sub specialties of science with published papers that identified both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. In geology alone, there were 1900 scientific papers that showed these periods did exist. Without acknowledging the existence of thousands of such papers or critiquing any of them, the IPCC decided to rewrite climate history to help the “Cause”.

Assertions about the longevity of CO₂ in the atmosphere has been used to manipulate the IPCC’s deterministic climate models to provide acceptable predictions for the Greens. So the IPCC quotes scientists asserting that CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for 50-200 years. This also helps the scare story that “We have to act now because this stuff hangs around for centuries doing damage.”

Professor Flannery takes this one step further by comparing CO₂‘s longevity to the half life of radioactive material and claims it will poison the atmosphere for a 1000 years.

So are we to believe the assertions of Green scientists who we suspect are trying to scare us and deceive us? Or the conclusions of dozens of scientists listed in Reading 5.5.5 from scientific experiments. These scientists conclude that CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for 2 to 15 years with most indicating a longevity of approximately 7 years.

With the Arctic region refusing to warm five times faster than the rise in the average global temperature, the Green activist and NASA scientist, James Hansen, went to Greenland to study temperature movements. Not surprisingly, he found significant temperature rises but not the predicted five fold rises. Because his work supported the “Cause” (his word not the authors) his work was extensively covered in the Media and given wide distribution by the Greens’ PR machine.

Reading 5,5.6 details 25 other scientific studies that disagree with Hansen’s work. Hansen is a Green activist, a self confessed liar, and has been caught fabricating data in his science. Why should we ignore the work of 25 other scientists and listen to only one scientist whose work has gained significant Media coverage?

Since 1900, the Green scientists tell us that global temperatures have risen by 0.7^oC. Sceptical scientists believe the figure is closer to 0.4^oC . Using the Greens’ figure, the freezing level around all the mountains of the World would have risen by 107 metres ( 350 feet ).

Mount Kilimanjaro had become a poster event in the Greens’ campaign with the loss of it’s 1,828 metres (6,000 feet) snow cap, not the 107 metres of Kilimanjaro’s snow cap being blamed on Man’s global warming. Trying to justify this claim the work of two Green scientists was given wide publicity by both the Media and the Green PR machine.

Their work was laughably poor as several scientists showed. Reading 5.5.7 discusses this. Why should we believe this shoddy science when there is much better existing science available and no explanation on why the ice above the 107 metres rise was melting.

So are these examples meeting the Mandate’s aim of “objective source of information” and have “high scientific and technical standards” while having an aim that “reflects a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.“?  No, the IPCC avoids conflicting views not supporting their ‘Cause’.

Reflecting a Range of Views and Expertise

There is a large amount of knowledge and science around the World that is ignored by the Green dominated IPCC. Why? Because it does not support the ‘Cause’ (Their words not the authors).

Realising that the advice about global warming given to governments was biased and coming from one source, scientists banded together to critique the IPCC reports and highlight all the science that was being ignored. These reports (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change [NIPCC] reports) can be found at http://climatechangereconsidered.org/ which can be accessed through Reading 5.5.8

Does the Mandate’s words of “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis ” mean that the IPCC should ignore and hide all this science which contradicts their findings?  And is this meeting the “aim to reflect a range of views, expertise” ?

Reading 5.5.9 discusses how the views of two of the World’s best experts were ignored. Then it shows how the IPCC should have discussed these views even if they disagreed with them. What was worst, was their attempt to prop up the idea that “all the scientists agree” by including the names of these two scientists they knew vigorously disagreed. The deceit of the IPCC knows no bounds.

Reading 5.5.10 shows how the IPCC deliberately misled the politicians and their staff through ‘language deception’ replacing the word “validated”, which has a professional precise meaning, to “evaluated”, which has generic meaning , so readers would believe the climate models were safe to use.

For example, civil engineers building bridges and aeronautical engineers building aircraft are only allowed to use validated computer modelling in their work.

Validated computer models are based on “solid” science which means that the predictions made by the model will match the results in the real world. If the models are not validated then the bridges could collapse and the aircraft crash.

All the climate models have never been validated. This explains why the predictions from these models have 5-15 fold errors.

Yet the IPCC mandate told us that their work would be of “high scientific and technical standards“

PACHAURI’S LIES

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri was the third chairman of the IPCC and held the post from 2002 to 2015.  His career with IPCC came to an abrupt end in 2015 after sexual harassment charges against him surfaced in Indian courts.

During his tenure, some of the worst behaviour of the IPCC took place.  He spent most of his time lying, misleading and deceiving the public about climate change.  He did not hesitate to denigrate and belittle anyone who did not believe in the Green “Cause”. 

None of his behaviour fitted well within the Mandate’s expectation that the IPCC would be “objective source of information” and “aim to reflect a range of views, expertise “.

Reading 5.5.11 discusses some of his behaviour.