Accueil > 20- ENGLISH - MATERIAL AND REVOLUTION > The IPCC is not science…
The IPCC is not science…
jeudi 13 novembre 2025, par
The IPCC is not science…
The IPCC has long presented itself as the international climate body, a leading scientific expert and the undisputed authority on the subject. In fact, not all climate scientists are fans of this organization, nor do they all support its statements, methods, and theories, contrary to what the press frequently claims…
First, it is important to remember the organizational and political reality of the IPCC, which is not primarily scientific but rather "intergovernmental." It is not elected by international climatological organizations. The climatologists who participate in the IPCC are not chosen by national climatological organizations or by other scientific bodies. It is not dependent on any scientific body. It is accountable only to governments, just like other intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, UNICEF, or the WHO.
It should also be noted that other scientists could be chosen to participate in the IPCC, given that the question posed—the evolution of the Earth in terms of climate—is also dependent on general physics, the study of seas and oceans, clouds, turbulence, aerosols, the poles, and many other fields dependent on the science of deterministic chaos. Studies of the Earth’s core, volcanism, seismology, and the sun are also essential to the climate discussion, not to mention the study of living organisms. The greenhouse effect, for example, is a physical law, not a climatological one, and therefore the opinion of physicists should be decisive, which is not the case at the IPCC. The latter acts as if only climatologists are concerned with the study of climate.
Next, we must mention the "IPCC reports," which, even though they are seemingly signed by an impressive list of climatologists, are not strictly speaking scientific articles. In fact, the methods and standards used worldwide for scientific articles are not applied to IPCC reports. The climate specialists who sign these reports may have contributed to the report itself, but they are not allowed to review and correct the final report, let alone its summary, which is then disseminated to the public. This summary is only in the hands of a small, carefully selected group of people, and it does not necessarily reflect the report itself. Most of the authors, therefore, do not have access to the final result ! And this is the case even if they raise objections to specific points. They cannot even publicize their disagreements… The report is not reviewed by scientists who did not participate in its drafting. It therefore does not meet any of the criteria of a scientific article ! Thus, the meaning of the articles by climatologists may be that we cannot definitively determine the direction of temperature changes, and the public summary may say that we are now certain that it will be a massive and catastrophic warming !
And that’s not even mentioning the crazy statements of some of the top leaders of the IPCC bureaucratic machine, which are sometimes completely disconnected from any real scientific study… These unfounded claims predict the end of Himalayan glaciers or the burial of land or a final cooking worthy of the Apocalypse without needing to support these media claims with the slightest scientific evidence.
The authors of the IPCC reports are nominated by states, not by climate scientists from different countries… These authors are far from all being scientists ; there are state bureaucrats, representatives of businesses, and non-scientific associations…
The selection of scientists participating in the IPCC is far from transparent. Thus, there is no risk of choosing a scientist with a different, not to say contrary, opinion to the official thesis that human activity is the cause of continuous and massive warming of planet Earth due to the greenhouse effect resulting from the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The IPCC itself takes it upon itself to combat climate scientists who think differently, notably by contacting publishers of scientific articles to prevent their publication, and by pressuring scientific reviewers to reject such articles. Those who persist in refusing to be convinced can no longer be published or funded… This method is far from conventional in science : indeed, a scientist can not only contradict a national or international scientific authority, but even contradict Newton, Laplace, Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, and many other renowned scientists, without risking such a deployment of manipulation and anti-scientific repression.
The IPCC has sometimes been caught red-handed in corruption, lying, data manipulation, and deliberate errors to support its theories.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_des_courriels_du_Climatic_Research_Unit
https://contrepoints.org/le-giec-predit-la-fin-du-monde-en-2050/
The IPCC has never really acknowledged its errors, its mistakes, or those of its leaders, and above all, has not analyzed them.
The method of applying implausible pressures cannot lend credence to the alleged "consensus of all climatologists in the world".
The IPCC, the media, and governments leave no room for independent thought on this issue, persecuting all opponents, denouncing them, pointing the finger at them, and calling them anti-scientists, backward, fascists, deceivers, manipulators, and other names…
This repression of all scientific thought is not necessitated by the gravity of the situation on Earth and by the problems linked to "global" warming, but by government manipulation which uses science on this subject with economic and political goals which we will explain.
Who benefits from all this manipulation and what is their purpose ?
To understand this, we must first remember that there is a capitalist lobby that, without explicitly stating it, effectively controls the IPCC : the nuclear industry lobby. The weight of the so-called "climate catastrophe" thesis is proportional to the growing influence of this industry worldwide. The leading climatologists participating in the IPCC bodies are almost always tied to this lobby by economic interests. The others are linked to and supported by governments. And governments have chosen to invest enormous sums in nuclear power and desperately need to assert that nuclear power is the best way to combat… the pollution of the planet !
Let us also remember that nuclear power pollutes the planet so severely that no one can say for sure how dangerous the deposits of this industry’s waste and radioactive releases, particularly those from Fukushima, remain on the ocean floor… Hence the need to whitewash the nuclear industry by claiming it is carbon clean, that is, that it does not emit carbon dioxide. This is the thesis that the IPCC is increasingly disseminating openly and has, in fact, organized itself to push it into the public eye, cloaking it in a pseudo-scientific veneer and asserting that this industry will also definitively solve the “energy crisis.”
Let us also recall other advantages, for states and the owning classes, of this thesis which blames "humanity," and not the capitalist system, for all the ills of the Earth : climate change, but also hunger, poverty, housing problems, the problems of large impoverished cities, the water issue, migration, and social and political crises. It’s so convenient : everything is the fault of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) ! Nothing is the fault of the capitalist system, which has achieved such success that it can only collapse miserably, crushing the human population in the process. And, of course, the owning classes are determined to camouflage this real collapse under a fabricated catastrophe that they invent, supposedly due not to the transformation of the capitalist system itself, but to the atmospheric air…
Let us now examine the validity of the IPCC’s thesis in detail : that global warming is due to an excess of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s important to understand that the discussion surrounding this thesis is ongoing and must continue, because the assertion itself doesn’t stem from simple experimental observation but from the study of mathematical and computer models. However, climate is extremely difficult to model given our many unknowns about how clouds and oceans function, and given that the physical laws governing climate fall within the domain of "deterministic chaos," which precludes long-term predictions. Furthermore, the models themselves vary considerably from one prediction to another. It’s worth noting that most areas of physics don’t allow for prediction. Finally, the numerous feedback loops in climate mean that one phenomenon can trigger its opposite. Modeling is not the same as observing or theorizing.
Let’s discuss the greenhouse effect in its actual physical sense…
First of all, is solar radiation enough to constantly heat a greenhouse ? Not at all ! Gardeners and farmers know this well : energy escapes from everywhere, and the greenhouse effect alone isn’t enough to endlessly accumulate more heat. This physical "effect," which certainly exists, has its limits…
https://www.france-serres.com/blog/astuces/eviter-le-gel-sous-serre
https://www.chloro-concept.fr/story/4698-pourquoi-fait-il-plus-froid-dans-ma-serre-que-dehors
And for the Earth too, there are limits…
"The problem is that we can’t warm a planet as much as we want by adding greenhouse gases to it indefinitely... Beyond a certain amount, as the opacity of greenhouse gases in the infrared begins to saturate, the proportion of stellar radiation absorbed also decreases due to Rayleigh scattering, which tends to reflect some of the incident photons back into space."
https://media4.obspm.fr/public/ressources_lu/pages_planetologie-habitabilite/serre.html
There are climate scientists who are skeptical, who don’t say the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist, but that it isn’t responsible for unlimited and eternal warming. Here’s an example :
https://media4.obspm.fr/public/ressources_lu/pages_planetologie-habitabilite/serre.html
In all the years that the IPCC has existed, it has never on its own commissioned a single real scientific experiment aimed at studying the greenhouse effect in the laboratory.
All those who claim to have discovered this phenomenon through Svante Arrhenius conveniently forget to mention that this scientist had asserted that the induced warming would be entirely beneficial to human beings ! And they fail to explain how he was wrong.
They fail to tell us why they assume that any temperature increase necessarily stems from the human-caused greenhouse effect and not from natural temperature variations. How is it that paleoclimates show us natural variations in the past, but these variations no longer exist ?
Why do they tell us that the Earth’s average temperature is rising when they never measure an average temperature but instead calculate regional temperatures, which are averages, and then average those regional temperatures ? They only have averages of averages and their evolution. But these temperatures only concern the atmosphere, whereas there is no separation between the atmosphere and the surface, and there is no average surface temperature of the Earth…
https://www.climat-en-questions.fr/reponse/temperature-globale-par-alexis-hannart/
In any case, climate is not just about temperature…
https://www.climato-realistes.fr/quest-ce-que-le-climat/
Is climate the greenhouse effect or the butterfly effect ?
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5518
Has there been a recent period of global warming without human causes ? Yes, the small optimum.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_climatique_m%C3%A9di%C3%A9val
When the facts—and they are stubborn—contradict the IPCC’s theories, it modifies them without saying so and without seriously explaining the past error. For example, the theory has shifted from "global warming" to "global disruption," which is not at all the same thing, and also to the notion that extreme cold can result from both extreme heat and extreme cold !
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article57
It is clear that glaciers are far from obediently following the IPCC’s melting predictions…
The IPCC’s thesis is that the melting of glaciers should depend on atmospheric heat, whereas it actually depends on the heat of water, therefore on the Earth’s surface and thus… on the core…
Glaciers melt when magma rises from beneath them…
https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete/definitions/volcan-volcan-sous-glaciaire-16253/
The IPCC denies producing science…
"What does the IPCC do ? The IPCC does not produce science as such. The IPCC conducts ’scientific monitoring’ of the progress of science on climate change, its impacts and mitigation and adaptation solutions in the form of reports," EDF tells us.
"The IPCC reports, described as scientific, are in reality political in nature," explains a philosopher.
https://shs.cairn.info/revue-paysan-et-societe-2022-1-page-5?lang=fr
The latest scientific report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), published on September 27, concludes that there is a "95% chance" that global warming is a consequence of human activity. The report, conducted by 259 renowned scientists, also revised downward its average forecast range for temperature increases, given that they have stagnated for the past 15 years. The rate of warming was reduced to 0.05°C per decade between 1998 and 2012, compared to 0.12°C per decade between 1951 and 2012. This represents a near-stabilization that models cannot fully explain.
Unsurprisingly, climate change deniers are not entirely convinced and are even particularly active and agitated, as reported by The Guardian. Lord Nigel Lawson, president of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate-skeptic think tank, wrote a scathing indictment of the IPCC in The Telegraph. Here are some excerpts.
"Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, the IPCC is a political lobbying group that discredits the name of science. Its previous report, in 2007, was so questionable that the number one scientific institution, the InterAcademy Council (IAC), decided to conduct an investigation… It concluded in 2010 that there were ’obvious errors in every major step of the IPCC’s estimation process’ and that ’significant improvements’ were needed… also criticizing the IPCC for claiming ’great confidence in several assertions for which there was little evidence.’ Since then, it seems that nothing has changed and the latest report is just as questionable as the previous one."
Lord Lawson takes particular issue with the fact that the new report is forced to acknowledge that ’global warming appears to have stopped : there has been no progression in officially recorded global temperatures over the past 15 years.’ This is dismissed as a temporary anomaly, and they explain that warming continued, but rather than occurring at the Earth’s surface, it may have occurred in the (very cold) depths of the oceans, for which, incidentally, there is no empirical evidence.
A growing number of climate scientists are concluding that at least part of the answer lies in the climate’s sensitivity to carbon—the amount of warming that can be expected from a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by fossil fuels : coal, oil, gas)—which is significantly lower than previously anticipated.
It is undoubtedly a reluctant acceptance of this fact that has led the new report to estimate that the warming we can expect by the end of the century is probably less than what the IPCC previously predicted : perhaps 1.5 degrees Celsius. What they have failed to do, however, is acknowledge that their computer models, on which they base all their predictions, are wrong…
"The true scientific method is based on empirical observation. When a theory—whether built on a computer program or not—produces predictions that are contradicted by observation, then the theory, and the computer model that reflects it, must be rethought."
“The IPCC has tried to mask this fundamental problem by proclaiming that while in 2007 it was 90% certain that most of the global warming since the 1950s was a consequence of human activity, it is now 95% certain. This isn’t science ; it’s nonsense. Neither the 90% nor the 95% figures have any scientific basis. They are simply numbers pulled out of thin air for gullible journalists and politicians.”
“The truth is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily increasing due to the use of fossil fuels, particularly in rapidly growing countries in the developing world, notably China. And it is also a scientific fact that this is warming the planet. But there are two unresolved scientific questions : do other climate factors have an influence, and how far will the warming go ?” …A temperature 1.5 degrees Celsius higher by the end of the century would actually be a good thing for global food production and human health.”
Learn more :
https://www.slate.fr/life/78328/climat-giec-science-sceptique-charabia
"The IPCC is getting burned... so is science..."
Climate change can be studied without the need for this catastrophist thesis that seeks to conceal the real collapse, that of capitalism…
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3898
What proof is there that the IPCC is linked to the nuclear industry sector and not to climatology ?
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4737
When the nuclear lobby decided to invest in "climate defense against carbon dioxide" to better defend its radioactive soup, its deadly corium…
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4268
Temperature and greenhouse gas curves : proof of anthropogenic global warming ?
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article647
The eco-anthropocene-biodiversity-climate-sustainable planet thesis accuses humanity of the crimes of capitalism.
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7476
The theory of global warming needs to be studied scientifically…
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7554
The IPCC is not the guarantor of scientific truth
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?breve283
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?breve198
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?breve213
While nuclear power is being revived worldwide under the pretext of fighting CO2 and global warming, nuclear risks are multiplying…
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7568
Conclusion :
Climatology is a real science, the greenhouse effect is a real effect, but what does not exist is global climate, average temperature, global disruption, CO2 as a pollutant, nor science driven by political, bureaucratic and anti-human goals.
https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4906
The study of Earth’s evolution (climatology but not only) deserves to be undertaken, but it should not be entrusted to a bureaucratic body run by economists, representatives of trusts and other pseudo-scientists appointed by states and capitalists.
What doesn’t exist is the IPCC’s public-private bureaucracy as a guarantor of science in service of the planet…