{"id":466277,"date":"2026-08-27T10:36:40","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T17:36:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=466277"},"modified":"2026-08-27T10:36:43","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T17:36:43","slug":"is-the-ipcc-reliable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=466277","title":{"rendered":"Is The IPCC Reliable?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

From CO2 Coalition<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By Kees de Lange<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the IPCC represent a reliable scientific organization? In the meantime, many scientists have convincingly demonstrated that the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is not a reliable scientific organization. It does not hurt to give a brief overview of the considerations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with the mission of the IPCC. The aim is to show that the human influence on the climate is disastrous. This is not a balanced scientific question, but an ideologically tinted approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If there were indeed an existential climate crisis, you would bring in the best physicists to tackle that problem. IPCC members are put forward by the government, and you won\u2019t find any skeptics in those circles. In fact, the pallbearers are usually not scientists with an impressive track record, but political followers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IPCC reports are hardly read, except for the summaries for policymakers. These are created by a show of hands, where the hands are raised by the above-mentioned government representatives. That is a parody of natural science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IPCC is guided by climate models. Moreover, the IPCC has specific ideas about which factors determine the climate. In doing so, all kinds of factors that probably play an important role are omitted in advance. Not my idea of independent responsible science. Let\u2019s first look at the IPCC modeling. First of all, passages on the KNMI and IPCC websites of the climate state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cInternal variations of the climate system beyond monthly timescales, apart from the contribution of the positive trend in multi-decade surface temperature that is currently prominent (Oldenborgh et al. 2012) and oceanic variability (Hazeleger et al. 2013), are difficult to predict and on timescales of 30 to 100 years, useful predictions are basically impossible. Not only because of the large contribution of natural variability, but also because the external forcing related to human activities is considered unpredictable. Any attempt to make climate predictions on a relatively small spatial scale, such as the Netherlands or even Western Europe, for several decades ahead, is not expected to yield useful results.\u201d The KNMI therefore concludes that predictions and expectations are not possible and that climate predictions do not lead to useful results. TheIPCC says: \u201cScenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. They are not predictions or forecasts. Rather, each scenario is an alternative view of how the future might unfold. A series of scenarios helps to understand possible future developments of complex systems. Some systems, which are well understood and for which complete information is available, can be modeled with some certainty, as is often the case in the natural sciences, and their future states can be predicted. However, many physical and social systems are poorly understood, and the information about the relevant variables is so incomplete that they can only be understood by intuition and are best communicated through images and stories. Predictions are not possible in such cases.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way, these passages have disappeared from the websites in question!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greenhouse Gases<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Greenhouse gases, especially CO2, are the IPCC\u2019s bad guy. In reality, water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, but that is not opportune, so it is concealed. There is also a logarithmic dependence between the concentration of a greenhouse gas and the resulting warming. In practice, there
is less and less warming with ever higher greenhouse gas concentrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This realization is old. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, an astrophysicist who worked on radiation transfer in stellar atmospheres around 1960, developed the theory. Chandrasekhar won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983. The Dutchman Wim Witteman made an important contribution, and pioneering work has been done by Van Wijngaarden and Happer with beautiful mathematical 2n stream techniques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ICC also recognizes the logarithmic dependence, but you will not find it in the summary for policymakers. Nevertheless, this result is crucial. Ultimately, when the CO2 content is doubled, the climate sensitivity increases by a small 1%. Hardly a reason for a crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The forcing as a result of greenhouse gases can be well calculated with AMO physics. What is much less known is the climate sensitivity: how much forcing causes how much warming and where. More and more it is becoming clear that this climate sensitivity (including the alleged feedback by water vapor) was heavily overestimated in the past. There is an extensive literature on this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I refer to the publications below to underline the above points (and more). In these links you will also find a multitude of references and graphs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n