Apocalypse? No!

Climate Science has had a bad press recently. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer has the reputation it had a decade ago, in the wake of Climategate.

Its reputation for objectivity has virtually disappeared.

Even the mainstream media have started to publish articles critical of the IPCC.

Consider this statement:

SIR JOHN HOUGHTON (First chairman of IPCC, 1995)
"Unless we announce disasters, no-one will listen".

Al Gore, who produced the propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth", said something very similar:

"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is".

Both of these statements imply that man is having a dangerous effect on the climate.

This is not what most scientists think.

The statements also imply that it is OK to exaggerate and misrepresent to support a particular view.

Most scientists don't agree with that, either.

For example, consider the following, which many IPCC scientists helped write:


"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic causes."

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.

The three statements in italics were in the draft version of the IPCC report, approved by the scientists who had worked on it.

These statements, all approved by scientific men, were taken out of the report by the politicians and bureaucrats of the IPCC, and the following sentence was substituted:

"The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate".(2)

Think about what this means. The scientists carefully summarised their findings.

The exact opposite was printed in the report.

That was the point when it became clear to anyone who was watching with a shrewd enough eye that we were not dealing with objective science but with a politicially biased organisation with an agenda which included its own survival and which therefore had to say that there was a problem when the scientists had actually said there wasn't........ (3)

If you have read this far, you will not be surprised to know that some IPCC scientists have resigned because of the way the organization is run.(4). It is difficult to find a list of such resignations; disagreeing publicly with the IPCC hardly boosts a person's career. A quiet, undocumented withdrawal is often a better option.

The Climate Sense Campaign has called on the UN to replace the IPCC with an expanded world Emergency Force which uses proven extreme-event forecasts to prepare for disasters - to reduces losses & save lives.

This would require the UN to agree that man's activities are not affecting the climate.

The probability of their agreeing is, as you probably guessed ...... zero.


(1)Quoted by Monckton,C; extract from "Apocalypse, No", a film in which he can be seen delivering a presentation to students at the Cambridge Union in 2007.

For the full lecture, as delivered to students of Churchill College, Cambridge, see Apocalypse, No!

It lasts a little over an hour.

(2)Monckton, as above.

(3)Monckton, as above.

(4)one example, from C.L, scientist at the National Hurricane Center, Florida:

........“After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.

In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns."

Back to top

Energy Policy
Fuel to Electricity
Nuclear Power
Wind -
big turbines
Wind -
small turbines
Low Energy Bulbs
Diversity Website