I have devoted the best part of the last 20 years to reading, commenting and preparing objections to the many voluminous science reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Besides the actual comments as an “Expert Reviewer” I have published numerous articles in a variety of Journals, many of them in New Zealand, and a book “The Greenhouse Delusion: a Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001′”, currently still available from the publishers at
I visit the local University library about once a month and monitor “Nature” “Science” Journal of Geophysical Research”, “Geophysical Research Letters”, Journal of Climate” and copy signficant articles. I receive several daily or weekly Email summaries of publications and I monitor all the most useful websites. I possess a large library of photocopies, pamphlets and books which is tending to get out of hand. I maintain contact with a large number of local and international correspondents. I have lectured frequently, both locally and internationally.
I have written many pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored. I assumed that they would never see the light of day. Owing to a change of location of the head office of IPCC to the USA it has become subject to an Official Information Act, and largely owing to the efforts of Steve McIntyre of
They have now published all the comments on the current 4th IPCC WGI (Science) Report at
They are rather tedious to wade through but they show at once that many of the scientists listed as supposed supporters of the report have serious doubts about it. A friend of mine, John McLean, has done a summary of the names of the reviewers and the number of comments they made.
I was rather surprised to find that I made far more comments than anybody else, 1,878 of them, 16% of the total. You will find that nearly all of them were rejected, allegedly, because “I gave no reason for them” The reasons were usually obvious, and when I elaborated them, they still claimed I had not given any.
It is difficult to understand any of the comments if you do not have the full report. The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it.
The “Summary for Policymakers” might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.
“The urge to save humanity is always a false
front for the urge to rule it”:
H. L. Mencken