Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
Tel. +44 (0)20 7287 4414
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.
The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

Bruges Group Blog

Spearheading the intellectual battle against the EU. And for new thinking in international affairs.

The Climate Scam - Part 1

Green-Scam Climate Scam Part 1

Deceits; Fake Science and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

Dr C Landsea, Hurricane Researcher at NOAA resigned from the IPCC when his contribution, "Little if Any Increase in Hurricane Strength in the Next Eighty Years" was replaced with different conclusions. In his resignation he wrote, "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound".

Dutch Professor Richard Tol resigned from the IPCC following the release of the AR5 document. He stated, "The consequences of climate change are being systematically over estimated. The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.

Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT was a lead author on Chapter 7 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report published in 2001.He was critical of the Summary for Policymakers saying it misrepresents what scientists say.

Drs McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated that Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph published in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC was based on a misuse of data and statistical techniques. The graph ignored both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age and used flawed statistics to predict a sharp increase in global temperatures from the year 2000. The National Academy of Sciences investigated the matter with a committee chaired by Professor Wegman of George Washington University. The Committee found in favour of Drs. McIntyre and McKitrick.

Dr. Frederick Saitz, once president of Rockefeller University, wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal 12 June1996

"In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and The American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report"

Numerous other leading climate scientists have been highly critical of the IPCC including Professor Judith Curry, climate professor at Georgia Institute of Technology; Professor S Fred Singer, one of the world's preeminent authorities on energy and environmental issues; Professor David Legates, professor of climatology at the University of Delaware; Professor Anthony Lupo, chairman and professor in the Department of Soil, Environment and Atmospheric Science at the University of Missouri, a member of Working Groups 1 and 3 for the IPCC plus eminent German physicist and meteorologist Klaus Eckert Puls who concluded that "the entire CO2 debate is nonsense". Anthropogenic climate change activists claim that there is a 97% consensus that human caused CO2 is responsible for global warming and the impending catastrophe. This is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. There was a global warming petition project published in 2008 and signed by 31,487 American scientists including 9,029 PhDs. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and the disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon natural plant and animal environments of the Earth". So much for the 97% consensus lie.

Then there was the "Climate Gate" scandal in November 2009 when a server containing emails from climate scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked and leaked emails described how scientists had manipulated data and used fake measurements to promote the anthropogenic global warming scam.

The 2022 Nobel Physics Laureate Dr. John Clauser slammed the 'climate emergency' narrative as a "dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world's economy and the well-being of billions of people". Inevitably, the punishments have begun. A talk that Dr. Clauser was due to give to the International Monetary Fund on climate models has been abruptly cancelled, and the page announcing the event removed from the IMF site.

Dr. Clauser was due to speak to the IMF's Independent Evaluation Office on Thursday July 27th 2023 under the title: "Let's talk – How much can we trust IPCC climate predictions?" It would appear that "not a lot" isn't the politically correct answer. Clauser is a longstanding critic of climate models and criticised the award of the Physics Nobel prize in 2021 for work on them. He is not alone, since many feel that climate models are primarily based on mathematics, and a history of failed opinionated climate predictions leave them undeserving of recognition at the highest level of pure science. Not that this opinion is shared by the green activist National Geographic magazine, which ran an article: "How climate models got so accurate they won a Nobel."

Dr John Clauser was co-winner of the 2022 Nobel Physics prize and winner of the Wolf Prize in Physics in 2010. He is one of the world's leading authorities on quantum mechanics, the study of matter and light at a sub-atomic and atomic level.

Dr Clauser has asserted that misguided climate science has "metastasised into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience". He argues that climate pseudoscience has been promoted and extended by misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies and environmentalists.

"In my opinion, there is no real climate crisis. There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world's largest population, and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science."

Physicists and chemists play a dominant role in investigating the science surrounding climate, which at its core focuses on heat exchange and the behaviour of atmospheric gases.

Dr. Clauser, is not the first Nobel physics prize-winner to challenge the "settled" scientific narrative of climate change.

The World Climate Declaration has been signed by around 300 climate professors, and declares: "There is no climate emergency." The lead signatory is the Nobel laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate models are said to be "not remotely plausible as global policy tools". They exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, but ignore any beneficial effect, the Declaration states. "Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science."

In 2019, Professor Antonino Zichichi, holder of Italy's highest honour, the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, led a group of 48 Italian science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is "unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic". In their scientific view, "natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850".

Recently, four Italian scientists, including three physics professors, undertook a major review of historical climate trends and concluded that declaring a "climate emergency" is not supported by the data. Over many meteorological categories there was "no clear positive trend of extreme events".

Last September, the leading nuclear physicist Dr. Wallace Manheimer warned that Net Zero would end modern civilisation. He observed that the new wind and solar infrastructure would fail, cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment "and be entirely unnecessary".

It would therefore seem prudent to check the validity of all the IPCC publications and be particularly sceptical about information in the Summaries for policy makers.

To see what the true agenda might be we only have to hear what the leaders of this movement have to say.

"The objective clearly enunciated by the leaders of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be a World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises whether real or not is expected to lead to compliance"
Dixy Lee Ray, former governor of the State of Washington USA (2015 C3 Headlines)

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world"
Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister for the Environment from 1977-99. (1988)

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore..
We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy".

Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Chair from 2008 to 2015. (2010 interview) 

Font size: +

Related Posts

Contact us

Director : Robert Oulds
Tel: 020 7287 4414
Chairman: Barry Legg
The Bruges Group
246 Linen Hall, 162-168 Regent Street
London W1B 5TB
United Kingdom
Founder President :
The Rt Hon. the Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven LG, OM, FRS 
Vice-President : The Rt Hon. the Lord Lamont of Lerwick,
Chairman: Barry Legg
Director : Robert Oulds MA, FRSA
Washington D.C. Representative : John O'Sullivan CBE
Founder Chairman : Lord Harris of High Cross
Head of Media: Jack Soames