Lies and fraud: IPCC scientists come clean

Mass media and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) keep telling us that over 97% of all scientists are convinced of man-made climate change. But is this true? In this program, former scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have their say and speak clear.

Switch here to your native language: https://www.kla.tv/28073

In June 2023, the TV station “Bayerischer Rundfunk” reported: “Researchers agree: current climate change is caused by humans”. Mass media keep telling us that over 97% of all scientists are convinced of man-made climate change. But is this true? This so-called “97% consensus” was already exposed as false in one of our Kla.tv programs (www.kla.tv/27453). As we will reveal in this program, critical and independent studies even show that only 0.54% of all scientists believe in man-made climate change.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims in its 2021 report that “unequivocally, human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land” and that “widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred” as a result.

Countless scientists say that these claims are an outright lie. A list of 46 scientists, who were former contributors to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was published. They sharply criticize the IPCC. In fact, a number of climate scientists have started turning their backs on the IPCC and have made their manipulative working methods public. The researchers unanimously criticize the massive manipulation of the existing data. What does not fit the picture is being ignored – and if necessary, false claims are intentionally published to support the narrative. Some scientists obviously play this game in order to gain fame and funding for their research.

The IPCC reports are said to be mere “lobby documents” that only serve the political purpose to shamelessly exploit the public’s unawareness and credulity on the complex climate issue. If you take a closer look at the evolving history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), you probably guess that the IPCC’s publications will contain a lot of misleading information and in some cases, even lies and deception. The IPCC emerged from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Maurice Strong was the founding father and first director of the UN Environment Program (UNEP), from which emerged the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Maurice Strong’s stated goal was, and I quote: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?“

At first, you might think that Maurice Strong deeply cared about the environment and therefore wanted to bring the industrialized civilization down. This was not the case and it became clear simply because in 1976, shortly after his term of office, he stepped out of the UN Environment Program, into the Canadian oil business and pursued a career there. His connections to David Rockefeller, Klaus Schwab and the WEF also attract attention. Klaus Schwab verbatim: “He (Maurice Strong) deeply incorporated the World Economic Forum’s mission […] into everything he did. He was a great visionary, always ahead of our times in his thinking. He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor, and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board. Without him, the Forum would not have achieved its present significance.”

Dear viewers, it is extremely worrying that the IPCC was born from the visions of men like Maurice Strong, who was more than close to the WEF. Is the IPCC therefore not inevitably a dubious instrument for achieving the WEF’s goals? Klaus Schwab and his WEF companions see the solution to environmental and global problems in the destruction of industrial civilization and all power in the hands of a coalition of large corporations, of course without the democratic say of the people. Their vision is a “Great Reset”, with the goal that, according to the WEF, by 2030 we will own nothing and still be happy.

In the following, you will hear statements of scientists who were former contributors to the IPCC:

Dr. Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “no significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected”. This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

Dr. John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report. “

Dr. Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”

Dr. Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”

Dr. Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”

Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”

Dr. Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”

Dr. Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”

Dr. Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

Dr. Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”

Dr. Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”

Dr. Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”

Dr. Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”

Dr. Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”

Klaus Schwab on Maurice Strong
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/11/maurice-strong-an-appreciation/

WEF wants world government through large corporations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum

Great Reset
https://winteroak.org.uk/2020/10/05/klaus-schwab-and-his-great-fascist-reset/
https://winteroak.org.uk/the-great-reset/
https://www.wochenblick.at/wirtschaft/welt-wirtschafts-forum-sie-werden-2030-nichts-mehr-besitzen/