Team of Scientists Counter UN IPCC: ‘Focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral ‘


Focus on stopping global warming and extreme weather is unscientific and immoral 

Ottawa, Canada, November 2, 2014: “IPCC Chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri was right to advocate “a global agreement to finally reverse course on climate change” when he spoke to delegates tasked with approving the IPCC Synthesis Report, released on Sunday,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “The new direction governments should follow must be one in which the known needs of people suffering today are given priority over problems that might someday be faced by those yet to be born.”

“Yet, exactly the opposite is happening,” continued Harris. “Of the roughly one billion U.S. dollars spent every day across the world on climate finance, only 6% of it is devoted to helping people adapt to climate change in the present. The rest is wasted trying to stop improbable future climatic events. That is immoral.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia and author of Taxing Air explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor remarked, “U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon often makes unjustified statements about climate change and extreme weather. However, in their still unanswered November 29, 2012 open letter to the Secretary General, 134 scientists from across the world asserted, ‘The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 [now 18] years. During this period…carbon dioxide concentrations rose by nearly 9%…The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.”

“Although today’s climate and extreme weather are well within the bounds of natural variability and the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, there is, most definitely, a climate problem,” said Carter. “Natural climate change brings with it very real human and environmental costs. Therefore, we must carefully prepare for and adapt to climate hazards as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide controls in a futile attempt to stop natural climate change impoverishes societies and reduces our capacity to address these and other real world problems.”

“The heavily referenced reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change demonstrate that, scientifically speaking, the global warming scare is over,” concluded Harris. “It is time to defund the IPCC and dedicate our resources to helping solve today’s genuine humanitarian problems.”

The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.  

ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.

For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit, or contact any of the following ICSC representatives:

In North America:

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. – thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 613-728-9200

ICSC Webpage:

In Australia: 

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter, PhD, Hon. FRSNZ
Chief Science Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Emeritus Fellow, Institute for Public Affairs, Melbourne

Former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences 
James Cook University
Townsville, Queensland, 4811

Email:  [email protected]

Phone (mobile): +61-(0)419-701-139
Phone (evening): +61-(0)7-4775-1268

ICSC Webpage:

In New Zealand:

Terry Dunleavy, MBE, JP
Founding Chairman and Strategic Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Hauraki, North Shore City 0622
New Zealand

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +64 9 4863859 – Mobile: +64 274836688

ICSC Webpage:


14 Responses

  1. Defund. Investigate further. Prosecute the hoaxers and inside-traders, especially Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who has made himself rich on IPCC-covered graft. This is deserving of a Nuremberg-style Crimes Against Humanity process.

  2. Harris is tied to the Heartland Institute. He has zero credibility as an objective observer of MMGW. The NIPCC, also cited in the article, is likewise tied to Heartland. Any tie to Heartland is a red flag that the material in an article will be tainted. Zero credibility.

    1. brunnegd- Please show us where Harris is mistaken and is giving incorrect information. Just because you do not like his message does not make it wrong.

    2. Pachauri is tied to UN. He has zero credibility as an objective observer of MMGW. The IPCC, also cited in the article, is likewise tied to UN. Any tie to UN is a red flag that the material in an article will be tainted. Zero credibility.

  3. Now that the pause in so-called Global Warming has extended to 18 years (and which none of their models predicted), the Green Industry is getting more and more desperate to justify their existence.

    They are beginning to realise that their game is up and that their slippery hold on the colossal trillion-dollar funds which have been enriching them all these years, is slowly but surely slipping from their grasp. This doom-laden warning about ‘irreversible damage to the climate’ may well be their final cry of anguish.

    in 50 or 100 years from now, historians will look back in wonder at the way in which the zealots in the Green Lobby managed to carry off the hoax for so long before they were rumbled, with Mother Nature proving them all to be charlatans.

  4. Science is founded on two pillars, theory and data. Theory is
    no use without data to test it, and data is no use without theory to give it

    It is axiomatic in science that if the data does not support
    the theory, the theory is wrong. No matter how many support it, or how powerful
    and influential they are, it is still wrong.

    In climate science the computer models stand for the theory
    and the measured temperatures are the data.

    In 2007 the UK met office published its model prediction for
    the decade up to 2014. They predicted an increase in temperature of 0.3C with
    95% confidence limits of 0.2C. This means that they are 95% confident that the
    temperature increase will be somewhere between 0.1C and 0.5C with their best
    estimate 0.3C. According to the data recently released by the Met Office,
    average global temperature decreased very slightly during this decade (0.01C).

    In any other branch of science, if the data fell outside the
    95% confidence limits, the theory would
    be rejected, or at least, require substantial modification. We call this fact checking, so by this
    measure, the climate model fails.

    1. “In 2007…
      . . . . ”

      Are you sure you actually read that on the MET site, or remembering something that somebody told you about something they read somewhere?

  5. Once again, we see the IPCC acting like a ‘drama queen’ with its doom and gloom message of a coming climate catastrophe due to mankind’s human-activity CO2 unless we get rid of coal.

    The reality is that when the data on climate is considered over geologic time, nobody would even suspect CO2 as having ever played a role in changing the climate of Earth.

    But the IPCC is dealing with propaganda, and one can see its origins from the days of UNEP head, Maurice Strong, who even talked about “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilisation to collapse”. He was a sustainable development freak, which he said “… can be implemented by deliberate ‘‘quest of poverty . . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control’’.

    Strong’s idea was supported by Timothy Worth (US Undersecretary for Global Issues) at the time: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.’”

    There was also Richard Benedick (a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the US State Department) who stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.’”

    There is no need to say anymore.

  6. The “good doctor” is just jealous of the father of climate hysteria, Maurice Strong, who initiated the whole process to skim off millions and retire wealthy in China. He was always a Marxist commie sucking dog and that was always his purpose.

  7. It is so refreshing to read the TRUTH. Long past time to remove the UN from American shores and American’s hard earned money withdrawn. Bravo for the article.

  8. Seems most of the commenters here want the UN out of the climate business, but “The private sector continued to provide the lion’s share, contributing USD 224 billion, or 62% of the total.” per the referenced study.

    So maybe the ire being expressed here should be toward some other entity?

Leave a Reply