The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores crucial peer-reviewed literature and cherry-picks evidence to promote doom scenarios on climate change. These are just some of the findings of Climate Intelligence (Clintel) founder emeritus professor Guus Berkhout (84) after critically analyzing IPCC's scientific reports. “They refuse my request for an honest and open debate. The result is a very one-sided, fear-mongering story.”
By Arthur Blok
In 1925, a group of internationally renowned scientists gathered in Haarlem at the invitation of the Royal Dutch Society of Sciences (KHMV), the Netherlands’ oldest scientific society. The scientists celebrated the golden doctorate of Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, who shared the 1902 Nobel Prize in Physics with Pieter Zeeman.
Among its participants were Albert Einstein, Paul Ehrenfest, and Madame Curie, to name a few. Until today, the society holds annual meetings to promote science in its broadest sense, inviting the world's most prominent to discuss, interpret, and share their findings. Since its inception in 1752, the KHMV has advocated that sharing knowledge is one of science's core principles.
Berkhout and his Clintel—a global climate change and policy foundation—are loyal to that principle. Since 2019, they have taken the lead in speaking against the discourse of climate fear spread by politicians, movements, and the mainstream media. Berkhout even went as far as calling the so-called man-made climate emergency a hoax.
The Dutch emeritus professor has now targeted the IPCC and its members. The IPCC is a United Nations (UN) intergovernmental body that aims to advance scientific knowledge about climate change caused by human activities. Based on the research results, governmental policies should be designed and executed to stop climate change.
In the past year, Berkhout sent three personal letters expressing his worries to the IPCC chair, Professor Dr James Skea, but to no avail.
“I received only a small note from their secretariat saying they do not have the mandate to accept my proposal for cooperation. While the request in my first letter was strictly a request for debate and interaction, it was quite a remarkable reaction for a scientific panel”, he said.
When asked how the so-called global climate emergency is portrayed in the mainstream media, the retired professor passionately elaborated from his home near the dunes of The Hague: “The IPCC message is that the science is settled and that the current climate warming can be stopped by ending the emission of man-made CO2.”
He emphasized that some more modesty is appropriate. Berkhout: “The earth’s climate is extremely complex, and there is a lot we do not know. Today, much evidence points to the fact that the interference of large natural forces controls our climate and that human CO2 has a very modest influence.”
Berkhout does seem to raise an essential scientific point that has far-reaching consequences for current climate policies. In addition, he is not a random person who offers his services. Berkhout is a prominent member of the KNAW (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), the guardian and interpreter of science in the Netherlands. The institute was founded in 1808 as an advisory board of the Dutch government, a task it continues to fulfill.
After its launch in 2019, Clintel published the World Climate Declaration (WCD), which has an impressive list of almost 2000 signatories worldwide. The list includes Nobel Prize laureates, leading scientists, and climate experts from all over the world. In its declaration, Clintel urges all climate science to be less political while climate policies should be more scientific.
To further emphasize his point, Berkhout cites Dag Hammarskjöld - the UN’s second Secretary-General: "The UN was created not to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell.”
In his first letter to Dr Skea, Berkhout summarizes a list of fallacies in the latest IPCC report (AR6). Unfortunately, the report contains many scientific mistakes and shields scientific criticism. Clintel offered to help the IPCC correct those flaws.
Berkhout: “We are spending thousands of billions on IPCC’s mitigation policies, but they have never saved one life! Looking at today’s limited understanding of the earth’s climate, we should stop with mitigation and use those billions to invest in adaptation.”
Berkhout emphasized that Clintel advocates a scientific approach in which dialogue, discussion, and debate are pivotal. Berkhout: “If you refuse to debate models and data, it gives the impression that you are not a scientific organization but serve another goal.”
That is precisely where the shoe pinches regarding the IPCC. The IPCC is an intergovernmental organization, a forum of national governments. Scientists do not control it, but politicians do.
Its secretariat has been placed in the hands of The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which is responsible for coordinating responses to environmental issues within the United Nations system, and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), another UN subsidiary.
Berkhout: “In the IPCC, the themes of climate, weather, and environment are unscientifically mixed up where politically necessary. Do not get me wrong, Clintel firmly believes that we should be good stewards of the natural environment on our planet. But that is very different from trying to bend the Earth's climate to our will.”
Berkhout elaborated that the foundation of the IPCC was not right from the beginning when it was initiated by environmentalists (UNEP) and meteorologists (WMO) in 1988. “The proper scientific question should have been: ‘What are the causes of climate change?’, but instead, it was: ‘Do human CO2 emissions cause climate change?’. Scientifically, the start was already bad!”
This colored assumption is also visible in the three main IPCC Working Groups. Working Group I deals with the physical science basis of climate change, Working Group IIdeals with climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, and Working Group III deals with climate change mitigation.
Berkhout: “Look at the title of the third Working Group. It shows that people already thought in the beginning (1988) that they could take mitigation measures (by removing CO2) to stop climate change. It unfortunately led to the belief that ‘The science is settled’ and the conclusion that ‘If we turn the CO2 knob, we can adjust the climate to our liking.’ But reality turns out to be very different.”
In his second letter to the IPCC president, Berkhout again points out that IPCC's message, "Global warming is mostly human-caused," is scientifically dubious. To say the least. Any panel that calls itself scientific should embrace his suggestion to have an open dialogue to get closer to the truth. If you don’t, at least you have to explain why!”
In his third letter, he asked the question: Why have Clintel's previous two submissions to the IPCC not been responded to? Why is a scientific discussion banned? Bear in mind that it is and will always remain one of the main pillars of science.
His last letter also refers to the above-mentioned historical gathering in Haarlem to celebrate Hendrik Lorentz's golden doctorate: “That's how it happened back then, and we owe significant progress in physics to it. With the spirit of these great scientists in mind, it is about time that IPCC and Clintel start a joined climate initiative for the sake of science and humanity.”
The Liberum tried on various occasions to get a response from the IPCC regarding Prof. Berkhout's invitation letters, to no avail. He concluded: “It sure looks like the IPCC is afraid to debate with scientists who think differently. If this continues, climate research appears in the wrong hands. That is bad news for everybody.”
All
Of these actions are political a meant to boost the industry in various fields and open up fronts for work.
In a few years this would be agreed upon and then the industry would have another boost if work for adaptation.
The world action does not make sense in the first degree but the rulers of the world have a sense at a second degree of why a way forward is steered in a different orientation that what would seem imminent to do instead with a sense of urgency: I keeps real urgency to be the driver towards new trends.. we are living in the Industrial Revolution a fashion or a trend that’s my opinion!