UN Lead Author Michael Oppenheimer Admits to Congress Climate Science Not ‘Settled’: ‘The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result (of rising CO2), that’s not’ settled

2318 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 | May 29, 2014 11:00am

Examining the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Process


The following statements were made during the Q&A session of the May 29th House hearing: 

Michael Oppenheimer: ‘Some things are more or less settled, some things are not. The question of whether carbon dioxide is 30 to 40 percent above pre-industrial times, that’s settled. The question of exactly how warm the Earth will become as a result, that’s not.’ Oppenheimer refused to defend the 97% claims. ‘Whether the 97% is defensible, I really don’t know.’

(Climate Depot Note: Oppenheimer was a paid partisan of the environmental pressure group Environmental Defense and the climatologist to the Hollywood stars. Oppenheimer was the holder of the “Barbra Streisand Chair of Environmental Studies” at the Environmental Defense Fund. Streisand explained: “My Foundation started supporting climate change work in 1989, when I donated a quarter of a million dollars to support the work of Oppenheimer at EDF.)

Oppenheimer referred to global warming skeptics as “the fringes” during the hearing, prompting California GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher to chastise him for his comment.
Rohrabacher told Oppenheimer that his comments “lead one to believe that the people on [the IPCC] with outside views are ‘fringes’. Again, it’s an attitude I find overwhelming with those pushing the global warming theory.’
Other scientists comments on global warming ‘consensus’ claims:

UN IPCC Lead Author & University of Sussex economist Dr. Richard Tol: ‘Science is, of course, never settled.’ Tol added: ‘The 97% estimate is bandied about by basically everybody.  I had a close look at what this study really did. as far as I can see, The estimate just crumbles when you touch it. None of the statements in the papers are supported by the data that’s in the paper. The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.’

Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., professor emeritus in meteorology at Colorado State University: ‘The science is not settled, no.’

Climate Researcher Dr. Daniel Botkin: ‘I have spent my life looking at facts and analyzing facts…It’s the wrong point about how many people approve, that is not science.’

Related Links: 

UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rips IPCC at Congressional Hearing: ‘The IPCC leadership has in the past been very adept at putting troublesome authors in positions where they cannot harm the cause. That practice must end’



6 Responses

  1. Uh-oh!
    David Suzuki, “The Science Is Settled Guy”, would have you thrown into jail for speaking such heresies.
    If a fruit-fly specialist like Dr. Suzuki says the science is settled, then IT’S SETTLED, dammit!

  2. This is a good example of why we will lose: Our side is stump lazy. The story of 97% is well known and easily documented as we have done at “The Two Minute Conservative” you can find via Google or at adrianvance.blogspot.com Just put “97” into the search box in the upper right hand corrner and it will all spill out in 400 world pieces that you can read and understand if you got through junior high school.

    This all began when a girl grad student decided to survey the American Geological Society of 10,235 Ph.D. rockhounds thinking they knew everything about the atmosphere! (You cannot make up grad students.) When she found it would over $5,000 for the printing and mailing she trimmed the list to 100 government rock men with hiring responsibilities, 77 responded and 75 endorsed man-caused global warming, 97%

    Naomi Oreskes, the Science Librarian at Scripps Institute read this and decided to her own survey using her undergrad students to do the work claiming she had surveyed the literature and also found 97% agreement. That she was confirming the original study would lend her credence and it did. SCIENCE, the journal, published it, but two Canadians were suspicious first finding Naomis’s girls had only done 1/10th the job and were undergrads, which is not permitted. They also found errors in Naomi’s math. SCIENCE published an errata for the first time in 100 years and Naomi sulked of in disgrace, but not the small town in Illinois of the same name.

    Meanwhile, the Deans of Harvard College were watching all this and sang in chorus, “That’s our girl!” and hired Naomi to come and work for them, so there she is today and everyone lived happily ever after.

    Adrian Vance

  3. “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…one must say clearly that de facto we distribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.” — Otto Edenhofer, IPCC Working Group III co-chair, Nov. 14, 2010.

  4. This is all urban myth. The simple fact is the IPCC stole the Fleishmann’s Margarine boast of ‘97% fat free’. That number was chosen by Madison Avenue based on psychological research, that 95% wasn’t sufficient to generate ‘majority bias’, but 97% was. The majority of Americans, seeing ‘97%’ anything, will believe it, at least a majority of them will, and that’s all that matters. And just like Fleishmann’s Margarine, it’s a huge lie.

Leave a Reply