These are the words of 16 scientists who are members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), disillusioned by the corruption of science within the organisation.
Published on 14 January 2026 by pgibertie
Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise has been detected during the 20th century”. This does not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the air do not cause global temperatures to rise… the temperature changed first and, around 700 years later, a change in the carbon dioxide content in the air followed.”
Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public, most of the scientists involved in the IPCC disagree that global warming is occurring. Its conclusions have been systematically distorted and/or politicised with each successive report.”
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to global warming. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.
Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly suggests that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not just going to spout slogans and endorse the IPCC because I don’t trust the process.”
Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not evolved as predicted by state-of-the-art climate models. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996, the IPCC listed me among around 3,000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on the climate. This was not the case. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that uncontrollable catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis of the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being called into question; as is the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they haven’t heard it, it’s because of the din of global warming hysteria based on the logical fallacy of the ‘argument from ignorance’ and the predictions of computer models.”
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is needed in our current understanding of the climate and our ability to model it.
Dr Peter Dietze: “By using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans.”
Dr John Everett: “It’s time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal areas have been much warmer and colder than projected in current climate change scenarios. I have looked at the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is no problem with increased acidification, even to the unlikely levels of the most widely used IPCC scenarios.
“Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC has refused to consider the effect of the Sun on the Earth’s climate as a subject worthy of investigation. The IPCC has conceived its mission solely as the study of potential human causes of climate change.”
Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the concept of anthropogenic global warming until the uproar began after the extravagant claims made by James Hansen of NASA in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of this claim, starting with the basic principles. My studies then led me to believe that these claims were false. “
Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is probably not the most important environmental problem facing the world in the 21st century. There are no signals in the mortality data indicating increases in the overall frequency or severity of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] statement on climate change is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
