John Penhallurick’s Blog 1:Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud

Why I remain a climate sceptic in relation to human emissions of CO2

The IPCC’s case against human emissions of CO2 as the major factor in climate change is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human society

John Penhallurick

email contact:


This paper supports the claim that the IPCC’s case against human emissions as the major factor in climate change is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on human society. For most of its supporters, the IPCC’s case has achieved the status of a religion.

  1. First, it is shown that the IPCC reports involve frauds and misrepresentations, in that the published results are based on the agendas of climate activists rather than the scientists who wrote the original chapters.
  2. Second, it is shown that the current warming phase is the latest cycle of previous worldwide cycles of warming and cooling, and pointed out that that it is scarcely credible that the previous sources involving natural variability have suddenly stopped their action, and been replaced by human activities.
  3. Third, I show that the climate models claimed to support placing the blame on human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are fatally flawed and in no way represent “true science”.
  4. Fourth, it is shown that when placed in the context of the earth’s total annual CO2 budget, human emissions are of negligible importance, and that the land-based measures of temperature change used by the IPCC are unreliable.
  5. Fifth, a major decline in CO2 emissions during the Great Depression had no impact on either CO2 levels or temperature.
  6. Sixth, by a careful analysis of the data on human emissions, the overwhelmingly important greenhouse gas is water vapour.
  7. Seventh, evidence from ice cores going back millions of years, which first were claimed to support the IPCC’s case, on closer examination show that rises in levels of CO2 were a consequence of warming, and not its cause.
  8. Eighth, correlations between CO2, Total Solar Irradiance and changes in the major Ocean currents, and U.S.temperature show that the correlation between CO2 and temperature at 0.02 are abysmal, while the correlation between temperature and the other factors in excellent at 0.83. Finally, the contempt shown by climate modellers for any influence from the sun, is shown to be totally misguided.


First I should explain exactly what I am sceptical about. I accept that the climate has warmed by about 0.7 °C since the end of the Little Ice Age. Thus although I know that those who believe that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will cause disaster will attack me as a “climate change denier”, since they apply this label to anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the IPCC’s claims, this is not true of myself. Second, I accept that human CO2 emissions have made some small contribution to that warming. But what I remain sceptical about is the claim that human emissions are by far the major factor in that warming and that unless drastic cuts are made to those emissions, disaster will result. Because the supporters of cuts to human emissions habitually respond to criticism with ad hominem abuse, let me also say that I have never received a cent from any oil company or other CO2 “villain”. I also wish to state that I am concerned about the environment. I am a birdwatcher and since my retirement my life has been devoted to putting information about the status of every species on the web. see my website  But I can not stand falsehoods masquerading as genuine science.

It is illuminating that the IPCC operates in close relationship with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” (cited Carter 2010: 194) In other words, the process begins by specifying that only human-induced climate change counts as climate change. Note that this involves a corruption of English. In other words, if you criticise the IPCC’s view of climate change, their redefinition of that term means that you can be labelled a “climate change denier”. Whereas only a fool would deny that the earth’s climate is dynamic and constantly changing. And as will be seen below, major fluctuations of climate that have occurred just over the last 11,000 years, when human emissions can have played no part whatsoever, the attempt of the committee cited above to change the meaning of English words is absurd. And in fact, since the IPCC and its supporters appear to imagine that climate was stable, until evil industrial societies began to contaminate it with their wicked carbon dioxide emissions, if any group should legitimately be called “climate change deniers: it is the IPCC and their supporters!

Below I have listed the topics discussed in separate posts.  These can be accessed by clicking on each title. To come back to this document, just click the Back arrow.

2. Evidence from past climate change

3. How the IPCC has corrupted science

4. Flaws in Climate Models

5. The role of the ocean in climate change

6. How long does CO2 remain in the atmosphere

7. Is carbon dioxide a threat?

8. Further evidence of lack of correlation between human emissions of CO2 and global warming

9. Evidence that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas and that water vapour is far more important

10. Evidence from ice cores

11. Can human emissions of Carbon Dioxide be blamed for the retreat of Arctic Ice?

12. Significant correlations argue against the IPCC’s case

13. The sun is the major factor in climate change

In conclusion, I believe I have provided ample evidence in the many posts on this subject to justify my scepticism about the  case that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.  Without CO2 , which is the basis of all plant life and hence of all animal life, the earth would be a bare and barren place.  It is unbelievably stupid, on the basis of the IPCC’s flawed case, to cause major upheavals in, and significant damage to, the world’s economy and Australia’s.

About these ads

About jpenhall

I am a keen birder and have devoted my life especially since retirement to a study of the world's birds. But I was also a professor, with thirty years experience of both carrying out and evaluating research.But I detest shoddy research. Thus I reject almost wholly the propaganda of the IPCC and its minions
This entry was posted in Climate Change. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to John Penhallurick’s Blog 1:Evidence that the IPCC’s case is a fraud

  1. Chris Charles says:

    Of what I read I think I understand your scepticism. I was impressed with your calm logical discussion & found little that I would (or could) argue with.
    However there are a couple of comments I would like to make:

    “The Climategate scandal also revealed the coterie of climate modellers acted to prevent the publication of papers that questioned their methods and results. They have also repeatedly denied access to other researchers who have sought their data, and information on their methods. There is a reference below to the climate modellers “tweaking” their results to get them to match (to some degree) current climates.”

    Couldn’t you substitute any branch of research for “climate-modellers” in this para? Isnt this just a sad downside of the ‘publish or perish’ world in which you have worked?

    “It is unbelievably stupid to cause major upheavals in, and significant damage to, the world’s economy and Australia’s.”

    After all the forgoing rational argument, why have you jumped to this emotional conclusion? You dont seem to have provided any economic analysis at all to support the assumption of “significant damage”.
    By major upheavals I assume you are referring to small incentives & disincentives inherent in a tax change predicated on a assumption of anthropomorphic Climate Change.

    Suppose that all your points are valid & that history will show that the anthropomorphic effect was negligible. The effect of the tax change will be to encourage some industries at the expense of some others. Economic activity will still go on. Scientific research will still go on. The same $’s will still be circulating in the system.

    Statement of Interest:
    My retirement fund holds BHP, Santos, Woodside, Bluescope, & other mining & energy sector shares. This shareholder for one wishes that they would stop spending my money on alarmist advertising & make the small adjustments needed to maximise the opportunities presented by the changes.

  2. Robert Gunning says:

    Well put

  3. Laurence Mayer says:

    Agreed, a small (but sane) voice in the political wilderness that is finally making iteself heard over the over-whelming din of political expediency…

  4. Robert James says:

    Excellent article that exposes what is actually going on and some of the big players in the Global warming gravy train that has snowballed.
    Unfortunately with these vested interests, nature, truth and fact are low on their priorities. The monetary rewards, high.
    Thanks for a well balanced view.

  5. Michael Wink says:

    Excellent overview- very helpful for discussions

  6. Robert Gunning says:

    Well covered

  7. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 2 Evidence from past climate change | jpenhall

  8. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 3: How the IPCC has corrupted science | jpenhall

  9. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 5:The role of the ocean in climate change | jpenhall

  10. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 7: Is carbon dioxide a threat? Further evidence from the Earth’s total CO2 budget | jpenhall

  11. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 8: Further evidence of the lack of correlation between changes in C02 and temperature | jpenhall

  12. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 11:The truth about Arctic Ice | jpenhall

  13. Pingback: John Penhallurick’s Blog 13:The sun is the major factor in climate change | jpenhall

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s