Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?1 

 

Richard S. Lindzen 

Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

 

September 19, 2008 

 

 

Abstract 

 

For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate 
science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower 
rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the 
heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural 
factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition 
between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The 
latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the 
potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many 
components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent 
increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that 
never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small 
executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the 
distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors 
are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a 
political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal 
rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the 
cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In 
particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists 
adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how 
opposition to these positions is disposed of. 

 

 

 

 

 

1 This paper was prepared for a meeting sponsored by Euresis (Associazone per la 
promozione e la diffusione della cultura e del lavoro scientifico) and the Templeton Foundation 
on Creativity and Creative Inspiration in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering: Developing a 
Vision for the Future. The meeting was held in San Marino from 29-31 August 2008. Its 
Proceedings are expected to be published in 2009. 


2 At some level, this is obvious. Theoretical physics is still dealing with the standard 
model though there is an active search for something better. Molecular biology is still working 
off of the discovery of DNA. Many of the basic laws of physics resulted from individual efforts 
in the 17th-19th Centuries. The profound advances in technology should not disguise the fact 
that the bulk of the underlying science is more than 40 years old. This is certainly the case in the 
atmospheric and oceanic sciences. That said, it should not be forgotten that sometimes progress 
slows because the problem is difficult. Sometimes, it slows because the existing results are 
simply correct as is the case with DNA. Structural problems are not always the only factor 
involved. 

1. Introduction. 

 

Although the focus of this paper is on climate science, some of the problems pertain to science 
more generally. Science has traditionally been held to involve the creative opposition of theory 
and observation wherein each tests the other in such a manner as to converge on a better 

understanding of the natural world. Success was rewarded by recognition, though the degree of 
recognition was weighted according to both the practical consequences of the success and the 
philosophical and aesthetic power of the success. As science undertook more ambitious 
problems, and the cost and scale of operations increased, the need for funds undoubtedly shifted 
emphasis to practical relevance though numerous examples from the past assured a strong base 
level of confidence in the utility of science. Moreover, the many success stories established 
‘science’ as a source of authority and integrity. Thus, almost all modern movements claimed 
scientific foundations for their aims. Early on, this fostered a profound misuse of science, since 
science is primarily a successful mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority. 

 

Until the post World War II period, little in the way of structure existed for the formal support of 
science by government (at least in the US which is where my own observations are most 
relevant). In the aftermath of the Second World War, the major contributions of science to the 
war effort (radar, the A-bomb), to health (penicillin), etc. were evident. Vannevar Bush (in his 
report, Science: The Endless Frontier, 1945) noted the many practical roles that validated the 
importance of science to the nation, and argued that the government need only adequately 
support basic science in order for further benefits to emerge. The scientific community felt this 
paradigm to be an entirely appropriate response by a grateful nation. The next 20 years 
witnessed truly impressive scientific productivity which firmly established the United States as 
the creative center of the scientific world. The Bush paradigm seemed amply justified. (This 
period and its follow-up are also discussed by Miller, 2007, with special but not total emphasis 
on the NIH (National Institutes of Health).) However, something changed in the late 60’s. In a 
variety of fields it has been suggested that the rate of new discoveries and achievements slowed 
appreciably (despite increasing publications)2, and it is being suggested that either the Bush 
paradigm ceased to be valid or that it may never have been valid in the first place. I believe that 
the former is correct. What then happened in the 1960’s to produce this change? 

It is my impression that by the end of the 60’s scientists, themselves, came to feel that the real 
basis for support was not gratitude (and the associated trust that support would bring further 
benefit) but fear: fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc. Many will conclude that this was 


3 It is sometimes thought that government involvement automatically implies large 

merely an awakening of a naive scientific community to reality, and they may well be right. 
However, between the perceptions of gratitude and fear as the basis for support lies a world of 
difference in incentive structure. If one thinks the basis is gratitude, then one obviously will 
respond by contributions that will elicit more gratitude. The perpetuation of fear, on the other 
hand, militates against solving problems. This change in perception proceeded largely without 
comment. However, the end of the cold war, by eliminating a large part of the fear-base forced a 
reassessment of the situation. Most thinking has been devoted to the emphasis of other sources 
of fear: competitiveness, health, resource depletion and the environment. 

 

What may have caused this change in perception is unclear, because so many separate but 
potentially relevant things occurred almost simultaneously. The space race reinstituted the 
model of large scale focused efforts such as the moon landing program. For another, the 60’s 
saw the first major postwar funding cuts for science in the US. The budgetary pressures of the 
Vietnam War may have demanded savings someplace, but the fact that science was regarded as, 
to some extent, dispensable, came as a shock to many scientists. So did the massive increase in 
management structures and bureaucracy which took control of science out of the hands of 
working scientists. All of this may be related to the demographic pressures resulting from the 
baby boomers entering the workforce and the post-sputnik emphasis on science. Sorting this out 
goes well beyond my present aim which is merely to consider the consequences of fear as a 
perceived basis of support. 

 

Fear has several advantages over gratitude. Gratitude is intrinsically limited, if only by the finite 
creative capacity of the scientific community. Moreover, as pointed out by a colleague at MIT, 
appealing to people’s gratitude and trust is usually less effective than pulling a gun. In other 
words, fear can motivate greater generosity. Sputnik provided a notable example in this regard; 
though it did not immediately alter the perceptions of most scientists, it did lead to a great 
increase in the number of scientists, which contributed to the previously mentioned demographic 
pressure. Science since the sixties has been characterized by the large programs that this 
generosity encourages. Moreover, the fact that fear provides little incentive for scientists to do 
anything more than perpetuate problems, significantly reduces the dependence of the scientific 
enterprise on unique skills and talents. The combination of increased scale and diminished 
emphasis on unique talent is, from a certain point of view, a devastating combination which 
greatly increases the potential for the political direction of science, and the creation of dependent 
constituencies. With these new constituencies, such obvious controls as peer review and detailed 
accountability, begin to fail and even serve to perpetuate the defects of the system. Miller (2007) 
specifically addresses how the system especially favors dogmatism and conformity. 

 

The creation of the government bureaucracy, and the increasing body of regulations 
accompanying government funding, called, in turn, for a massive increase in the administrative 
staff at universities and research centers. The support for this staff comes from the overhead on 
government grants, and, in turn, produces an active pressure for the solicitation of more and 
larger grants3. 


bureaucracies, and lengthy regulations. This was not exactly the case in the 20 years following 
the second world war. Much of the support in the physical sciences came from the armed forces 
for which science support remained a relatively negligible portion of their budgets. For example, 
meteorology at MIT was supported by the Air Force. Group grants were made for five year 
periods and renewed on the basis of a site visit. When the National Science Foundation was 
created, it functioned with a small permanent staff supplemented by ‘rotators’ who served on 
leave from universities for a few years. Unfortunately, during the Vietnam War, the US Senate 
banned the military from supporting non-military research (Mansfield Amendment). This shifted 
support to agencies whose sole function was to support science. That said, today all agencies 
supporting science have large ‘supporting’ bureaucracies. 

4 In fairness, such programs should be distinguished from team efforts which are 
sometimes appropriate and successful: classification of groups in mathematics, human genome 
project, etc. 

 

One result of the above appears to have been the deemphasis of theory because of its intrinsic 
difficulty and small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for large capital 
investment in computation), and the encouragement of large programs unconstrained by specific 
goals4. In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory 
and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and 
where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special 
advantage. 

 

This new paradigm for science and its dependence on fear based support may not constitute 
corruption per se, but it does serve to make the system particularly vulnerable to corruption. 
Much of the remainder of this paper will illustrate the exploitation of this vulnerability in the 
area of climate research. The situation is particularly acute for a small weak field like 
climatology. As a field, it has traditionally been a subfield within such disciplines as 
meteorology, oceanography, geography, geochemistry, etc. These fields, themselves are small 
and immature. At the same time, these fields can be trivially associated with natural disasters. 
Finally, climate science has been targeted by a major political movement, environmentalism, as 
the focus of their efforts, wherein the natural disasters of the earth system, have come to be 
identified with man’s activities – engendering fear as well as an agenda for societal reform and 
control. The remainder of this paper will briefly describe how this has been playing out with 
respect to the climate issue. 

 

 

2. Conscious Efforts to Politicize Climate Science 

The above described changes in scientific culture were both the cause and effect of the growth of 
‘big science,’ and the concomitant rise in importance of large organizations. However, all such 
organizations, whether professional societies, research laboratories, advisory bodies (such as the 
national academies), government departments and agencies (including NASA, NOAA, EPA, 
NSF, etc.), and even universities are hierarchical structures where positions and policies are 


5 A personal memoir from Al Grable sent to Sherwood Idso in 1993 is interesting in this 
regard. Grable served as a Department of Agriculture observer to the National Research 
Council’s National Climate Board. Such observers are generally posted by agencies to boards 
that they are funding. In any event, Grable describes a motion presented at a Board meeting in 
1980 by Walter Orr Roberts, the director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and 
by Joseph Smagorinsky, director of NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at 
Princeton, to censure Sherwood Idso for criticizing climate models with high sensitivities due to 
water vapor feedbacks (in the models), because of their inadequate handling of cooling due to 
surface evaporation. A member of that board, Sylvan Wittwer, noted that it was not the role of 
such boards to censure specific scientific positions since the appropriate procedure would be to 
let science decide in the fullness of time, and the matter was dropped. In point of fact, there is 

determined by small executive councils or even single individuals. This greatly facilitates any 
conscious effort to politicize science via influence in such bodies where a handful of individuals 
(often not even scientists) speak on behalf of organizations that include thousands of scientists, 
and even enforce specific scientific positions and agendas. The temptation to politicize science 
is overwhelming and longstanding. Public trust in science has always been high, and political 
organizations have long sought to improve their own credibility by associating their goals with 
‘science’ – even if this involves misrepresenting the science. 

 

Professional societies represent a somewhat special case. Originally created to provide a means 
for communication within professions – organizing meetings and publishing journals – they also 
provided, in some instances, professional certification, and public outreach. The central offices 
of such societies were scattered throughout the US, and rarely located in Washington. 
Increasingly, however, such societies require impressive presences in Washington where they 
engage in interactions with the federal government. Of course, the nominal interaction involves 
lobbying for special advantage, but increasingly, the interaction consists in issuing policy and 
scientific statements on behalf of the society. Such statements, however, hardly represent 
independent representation of membership positions. For example, the primary spokesman for 
the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected 
official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al 
Gore. 

 

Returning to the matter of scientific organizations, we find a variety of patterns of influence. 
The most obvious to recognize (though frequently kept from public view), consists in prominent 
individuals within the environmental movement simultaneously holding and using influential 
positions within the scientific organization. Thus, John Firor long served as administrative 
director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. This position 
was purely administrative, and Firor did not claim any scientific credentials in the atmospheric 
sciences at the time I was on the staff of NCAR. However, I noticed that beginning in the 
1980's, Firor was frequently speaking on the dangers of global warming as an expert from 
NCAR. When Firor died last November, his obituary noted that he had also been Board 
Chairman at Environmental Defense– a major environmental advocacy grou p – from 1975-
19805. The UK Meteorological Office also has a board, and its chairman, Robert Napier, was 


evidence that models do significantly understate the increase of evaporative cooling with 
temperature (Held and Soden, 2006). Moreover, this memoir makes clear that the water vapor 
feedback was considered central to the whole global warming issue from the very beginning. 

6 It should be acknowledged that Oppenheimer has quite a few papers with climate in the 
title – especially in the last two years. However, these are largely papers concerned with policy 
and advocacy, assuming significant warming. Such articles probably constitute the bulk of 
articles on climate. It is probably fair to say that such articles contribute little if anything to 
understanding the phenomenon. 

7 Certain names come up repeatedly in this paper. This is hardly an accident. In 1989, 
following the public debut of the issue in the US in Al Gore’s famous Senate hearing featuring 
Jim Hansen associating the warm summer of 1988 with global warming, the Climate Action 
Network was created. This organization of over 280 ENGO’s has been at the center of the 
climate debates since then. The Climate Action Network, is an umbrella NGO that coordinates 
the advocacy efforts of its members, particularly in relation to the UN negotiations. Organized 
around seven regional nodes in North and Latin America, Western and Eastern Europe, South 
and Southeast Asia, and Africa, CAN represents the majority of environmental groups 
advocating on climate change, and it has embodied the voice of the environmental community in 
the climate negotiations since it was established. 

 

The founding of the Climate Action Network can be traced back to the early involvement of 
scientists from the research ENGO community. These individuals, including Michael 
Oppenheimer from Environmental Defense, Gordon Goodman of the Stockholm Environmental 
Institute (formerly the Beijer Institute), and George Woodwell of the Woods Hole Research 
Center were instrumental in organizing the scientific workshops in Villach and Bellagio on 
‘Developing Policy Responses to Climate Change’ in 1987 as well as the Toronto Conference on 

. 
previously the Chief Executive for World Wildlife Fund - UK. Bill Hare, a lawyer and 
Campaign Director for Greenpeace, frequently speaks as a ‘scientist’ representing the Potsdam 
Institute, Germany’s main global warming research center. John Holdren, whose primary 
affiliation is the Woods Hole Research Center (an environmental advocacy center whose name is 
designed to confuse it with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a research center), is also 
a professor in Harvard’s Government Department, and has served as president of the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science and of Sigma Xi (the science counterpart of the 
honorary scholarship organization, Phi Beta Kappa). He was the Clinton-Gore Administration 
spokesman on global warming. The making of academic appointments to global warming 
alarmists is hardly a unique occurrence. The case of Michael Oppenheimer is noteworthy in this 
regard. With few contributions to climate science (his postdoctoral research was in astro-
chemistry), and none to the physics of climate, Oppenheimer became the Barbara Streisand 
Scientist at Environmental Defense6. He was subsequently appointed to a professorship at 
Princeton University, and is now, regularly, referred to as a prominent climate scientist by Oprah 
(a popular television hostess), NPR (National Public Radio), etc. To be sure, Oppenheimer did 
coauthor an early absurdly alarmist volume (Oppenheimer and Robert Boyle, 1990: Dead Heat, 
The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect), and he has served as a lead author with the IPCC 
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)7


the Changing Atmosphere in June 1988. It should be noted that the current director of the 
Woods Hole Research Center is John Holdren. In 1989, several months after the Toronto 
Conference, the emerging group of climate scientists and activists from the US, Europe, and 
developing countries were brought together at a meeting in Germany, with funding from 
Environmental Defense and the German Marshall Fund. The German Marshall Fund is still 
funding NGO activity in Europe: 
http://www.gmfus.org/event/detail.cfm?id=453&parent_type=E (Pulver, 2004). 

8 The reports attributed to the National Academy are not, to any major extent, the work of 
Academy Members. Rather, they are the product of the National Research Council, which 
consists in a staff of over 1000 who are paid largely by the organizations soliciting the reports. 
The committees that prepare the reports are mostly scientists who are not Academy Members, 
and who serve without pay. 

One could go on at some length with such examples, but a more common form of infiltration 
consists in simply getting a couple of seats on the council of an organization (or on the advisory 
panels of government agencies). This is sufficient to veto any statements or decisions that they 
are opposed to. Eventually, this enables the production of statements supporting their position – 
if only as a quid pro quo for permitting other business to get done. Sometimes, as in the 
production of the 1993 report of the NAS, Policy Implications of Global Warming, the 
environmental activists, having largely gotten their way in the preparation of the report where 
they were strongly represented as ‘stake holders,’ decided, nonetheless, to issue a minority 
statement suggesting that the NAS report had not gone ‘far enough.’ The influence of the 
environmental movement has effectively made support for global warming, not only a core 
element of political correctness, but also a requirement for the numerous prizes and awards given 
to scientists. That said, when it comes to professional societies, there is often no need at all for 
overt infiltration since issues like global warming have become a part of both political 
correctness and (in the US) partisan politics, and there will usually be council members who are 
committed in this manner. 

 

The situation with America’s National Academy of Science is somewhat more complicated. The 
Academy is divided into many disciplinary sections whose primary task is the nomination of 
candidates for membership in the Academy8. Typically, support by more than 85% of the 
membership of any section is needed for nomination. However, once a candidate is elected, the 
candidate is free to affiliate with any section. The vetting procedure is generally rigorous, but for 
over 20 years, there was a Temporary Nominating Group for the Global Environment to provide 
a back door for the election of candidates who were environmental activists, bypassing the 
conventional vetting procedure. Members, so elected, proceeded to join existing sections where 
they hold a veto power over the election of any scientists unsympathetic to their position. 
Moreover, they are almost immediately appointed to positions on the executive council, and 
other influential bodies within the Academy. One of the members elected via the Temporary 
Nominating Group, Ralph Cicerone, is now president of the National Academy. Prior to that, he 
was on the nominating committee for the presidency. It should be added that there is generally 
only a single candidate for president. Others elected to the NAS via this route include Paul 
Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon. 


9 One might reasonably add the Pew Charitable Trust to this list. Although they advertise 
themselves as a neutral body, they have merged with the National Environmental Trust, whose 
director, Philip Clapp, became deputy managing director of the combined body. Clapp (the head 
of the legislative practice of a large Washington law firm, and a consultant on mergers and 
acquisitions to investment banking firms), according to his recent obituary, was ‘an early and 
vocal advocate on climate change issues and a promoter of the international agreement 
concluded in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. Mr. Clapp continued to attend subsequent global warming 
talks even after the US Congress did not ratify the Kyoto accord.’ 

 

It is, of course, possible to corrupt science without specifically corrupting institutions. For 
example, the environmental movement often cloaks its propaganda in scientific garb without the 
aid of any existing scientific body. One technique is simply to give a name to an environmental 
advocacy group that will suggest to the public, that the group is a scientific rather than an 
environmental group. Two obvious examples are the Union of Concerned Scientists and the 
Woods Hole Research Center9. The former conducted an intensive advertising campaign about 
ten years ago in which they urged people to look to them for authoritative information on global 
warming. This campaign did not get very far – if only because the Union of Concerned 
Scientists had little or no scientific expertise in climate. A possibly more effective attempt along 
these lines occurred in the wake of Michael Crichton’s best selling adventure, Climate of Fear, 
which pointed out the questionable nature of the global warming issue, as well as the dangers to 
society arising from the exploitation of this issue. Environmental Media Services (a project of 
Fenton Communications, a large public relations firm serving left wing and environmental 
causes; they are responsible for the alar scare as well as Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war campaign.) 
created a website, realclimate.org, as an ‘authoritative’ source for the ‘truth’ about climate. This 
time, real scientists who were also environmental activists, were recruited to ‘discredit’ any 
science or scientist that questioned catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The web site 
serves primarily as a support group for believers in catastrophe, constantly reassuring them that 
there is no reason to reduce their worrying. Of course, even the above represent potentially 
unnecessary complexity compared to the longstanding technique of simply publicly claiming that 
all scientists agree with whatever catastrophe is being promoted. Newsweek already made such a 
claim in 1988. Such a claim serves at least two purposes. First, the bulk of the educated public 
is unable to follow scientific arguments; ‘knowing’ that all scientists agree relieves them of any 
need to do so. Second, such a claim serves as a warning to scientists that the topic at issue is a 
bit of a minefield that they would do well to avoid. 

 

The myth of scientific consensus is also perpetuated in the web’s Wikipedia where climate 
articles are vetted by William Connolley, who regularly runs for office in England as a Green 
Party candidate. No deviation from the politically correct line is permitted. 

 

Perhaps the most impressive exploitation of climate science for political purposes has been the 
creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by two UN agencies, UNEP 
(United Nations Environmental Program) and WMO (World Meteorological Organization), and 
the agreement of all major countries at the 1992 Rio Conference to accept the IPCC as 


10 Appendix 1 is the invitation to the planning session for the 5th assessment. It clearly 
emphasizes strengthening rather than checking the IPCC position. Appendix 2 reproduces a 
commentary by Stephen McIntyre on the recent OfCom findings concerning a British TV 
program opposing global warming alarmism. The response of the IPCC officials makes it 
eminently clear that the IPCC is fundamentally a political body. If further evidence were 
needed, one simply has to observe the fact that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers will 
selectively cite results to emphasize negative consequences. Thus the summary for Working 
Group II observes that global warming will result in “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to 
increased water stress.” This, however, is based on work (Arnell, 2004) which actually shows 
that by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending 
on which scenario one wants to emphasize)! The IPCC further ignores the capacity to use build 
reservoirs to alleviate those areas they project as subject to drought (I am indebted to Indur 
Goklany for noting this example.) 

11 Appendix 3 is a recent op-ed from the Boston Globe, written by the aforementioned 
John Holdren. What is interesting about this piece is that what little science it invokes is overtly 
incorrect. Rather, it points to the success of the above process of taking over scientific 
institutions as evidence of the correctness of global warming alarmism. The 3 atmospheric 
scientists who are explicitly mentioned are chemists with no particular expertise in climate. 
While, Holdren makes much of the importance of expertise, he fails to note that he, himself, is 
hardly a contributor to climate science. Holdren and Paul Ehrlich (of Population Bomb fame; in 
that work he predicted famine and food riots for the US in the 1980's) are responsible for the 
I=PAT formula which claims that environmental impact is the product of population, affluence 
and technology. Presumably, this is an indication of their political and social preferences. 

authoritative. Formally, the IPCC summarizes the peer reviewed literature on climate every five 
years. On the face of it, this is an innocent and straightforward task. One might reasonably 
wonder why it takes 100's of scientists five years of constant travelling throughout the world in 
order to perform this task. The charge to the IPCC is not simply to summarize, but rather to 
provide the science with which to support the negotiating process whose aim is to control 
greenhouse gas levels. This is a political rather than a scientific charge. That said, the 
participating scientists have some leeway in which to reasonably describe matters, since the 
primary document that the public associates with the IPCC is not the extensive report prepared 
by the scientists, but rather the Summary for Policymakers which is written by an assemblage of 
representative from governments and NGO’s, with only a small scientific representation10,11. 

 

 

3. Science in the service of politics 

 

Given the above, it would not be surprising if working scientists would make special efforts to 
support the global warming hypothesis. There is ample evidence that this is happening on a 
large scale. A few examples will illustrate this situation. Data that challenges the hypothesis are 
simply changed. In some instances, data that was thought to support the hypothesis is found not 
to, and is then changed. The changes are sometimes quite blatant, but more often are somewhat 


more subtle. The crucial point is that geophysical data is almost always at least somewhat 
uncertain, and methodological errors are constantly being discovered. Bias can be introduced by 
simply considering only those errors that change answers in the desired direction. The desired 
direction in the case of climate is to bring the data into agreement with models, even though the 
models have displayed minimal skill in explaining or predicting climate. Model projections, it 
should be recalled, are the basis for our greenhouse concerns. That corrections to climate data 
should be called for, is not at all surprising, but that such corrections should always be in the 
‘needed’ direction is exceedingly unlikely. Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is 
entirely possible, in today’s scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of 
science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of 
models. Comparisons of models with data are, for example, referred to as model validation 
studies rather than model tests. 

 

The first two examples involve paleoclimate simulations and reconstructions. Here, the purpose 
has been to show that both the models and the greenhouse paradigm can explain past climate 
regimes, thus lending confidence to the use of both to anticipate future changes. In both cases 
(the Eocene about 50 million years ago, and the Last Glacial Maximum about 18 thousand years 
ago), the original data were in conflict with the greenhouse paradigm as implemented in current 
models, and in both cases, lengthy efforts were made to bring the data into agreement with the 
models. 

 

In the first example, the original data analysis for the Eocene (Shackleton and Boersma, 1981) 
showed the polar regions to have been so much warmer than the present that a type of alligator 
existed on Spitzbergen as did florae and fauna in Minnesota that could not have survived frosts. 
At the same time, however, equatorial temperatures were found to be about 4K colder than at 
present. The first attempts to simulate the Eocene (Barron, 1987) assumed that the warming 
would be due to high levels of CO2, and using a climate GCM (General Circulation Model), he 
obtained relatively uniform warming at all latitudes, with the meridional gradients remaining 
much as they are today. This behavior continues to be the case with current GCMs (Huber, 
2008). As a result, paleoclimatologists have devoted much effort to ‘correcting’ their data, but, 
until very recently, they were unable to bring temperatures at the equator higher than today’s 
(Schrag, 1999, Pearson et al, 2000). However, the latest paper (Huber, 2008) suggests that the 
equatorial data no longer constrains equatorial temperatures at all, and any values may have 
existed. All of this is quite remarkable since there is now evidence that current meridional 
distributions of temperature depend critically on the presence of ice, and that the model behavior 
results from improper tuning wherein present distributions remain even when ice is absent. 

 

The second example begins with the results of a major attempt to observationally reconstruct the 
global climate of the last glacial maximum (CLIMAP, 1976). Here it was found that although 
extratropical temperatures were much colder, equatorial temperatures were little different from 
today’s. There were immediate attempts to simulate this climate with GCMs and reduced levels 
of CO2. Once again the result was lower temperatures at all latitudes (Bush and Philander, 
1998a,b), and once again, numerous efforts were made to ‘correct’ the data. After much 


12 The 1998 paper actually only goes back to 1400 CE, and acknowledges that there is no 
useful resolution of spatial patterns of variability going further back. It is the 1999 paper that 
then goes back 1000 years. 

argument, the current position appears to be that tropical temperatures may have been a couple of 
degrees cooler than today’s. However, papers appeared claiming far lower temperatures 
(Crowley, 2000). We will deal further with this issue in the next section where we describe 
papers that show that the climate associated with ice ages is well described by the Milankovich 
Hypothesis that does not call for any role for CO2. 

 

Both of the above examples probably involved legitimate corrections, but only corrections that 
sought to bring observations into agreement with models were initially considered, thus avoiding 
the creative conflict between theory and data that has characterized the past successes of science. 
To be sure, however, the case of the Last Glacial Maximum shows that climate science still 
retains some capacity for self-correction. 

 

The next example has achieved a much higher degree of notoriety than the previous two. In the 
first IPCC assessment (IPCC, 1990), the traditional picture of the climate of the past 1100 years 
was presented. In this picture, there was a medieval warm period that was somewhat warmer 
than the present as well as the little ice age that was cooler. The presence of a period warmer 
than the present in the absence of any anthropogenic greenhouse gases was deemed an 
embarrassment for those holding that present warming could only be accounted for by the 
activities of man. Not surprisingly, efforts were made to get rid of the medieval warm period 
(Demming, 2005). The most infamous effort was that due to Mann et al (1998, 199912) which 
used primarily a few handfuls of tree ring records to obtain a reconstruction of Northern 
Hemisphere temperature going back eventually a thousand years that no longer showed a 
medieval warm period. Indeed, it showed a slight cooling for almost a thousand years 
culminating in a sharp warming beginning in the nineteenth century. The curve came to be 
known as the hockey stick, and featured prominently in the next IPCC report, where it was then 
suggested that the present warming was unprecedented in the past 1000 years. The study 
immediately encountered severe questions concerning both the proxy data and its statistical 
analysis (interestingly, the most penetrating critiques came from outside the field: McIntyre and 
McKitrick, 2003, 2005a,b). This led to two independent assessments of the hockey stick 
(Wegman,2006, North, 2006), both of which found the statistics inadequate for the claims. The 
story is given in detail in Holland (2007). Since the existence of a medieval warm period is 
amply documented in historical accounts for the North Atlantic region (Soon et al, 2003), Mann 
et al countered that the warming had to be regional but not characteristic of the whole northern 
hemisphere. Given that an underlying assumption of their analysis was that the geographic 
pattern of warming had to have remained constant, this would have invalidated the analysis ab 
initio without reference to the specifics of the statistics. Indeed, the 4th IPCC (IPCC, 2007) 
assessment no longer featured the hockey stick, but the claim that current warming is 
unprecedented remains, and Mann et al’s reconstruction is still shown in Chapter 6 of the 4th 
IPCC assessment, buried among other reconstructions. Here too, we will return to this matter 
briefly in the next section. 


13 Of course, Vinnikov et al did mention it. When I gave a lecture at Rutgers University 
in October 2007, Alan Robock, a professor at Rutgers and a coauthor of Vinnikov et al declared 
that the ‘latest data’ resolved the discrepancy wherein the model fingerprint could not be found 
in the data. 

 

The fourth example is perhaps the strangest. For many years, the global mean temperature 
record showed cooling from about 1940 until the early 70's. This, in fact, led to the concern for 
global cooling during the 1970's. The IPCC regularly, through the 4th assessment, boasted of the 
ability of models to simulate this cooling (while failing to emphasize that each model required a 
different specification of completely undetermined aerosol cooling in order to achieve this 
simulation (Kiehl, 2007)). Improvements in our understanding of aerosols are increasingly 
making such arbitrary tuning somewhat embarrassing, and, no longer surprisingly, the data has 
been ‘corrected’ to get rid of the mid 20th century cooling (Thompson et al, 2008). This may, in 
fact, be a legitimate correction (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3114). The embarrassment may 
lie in the continuous claims of modelers to have simulated the allegedly incorrect data. 

 

The fifth example deals with the fingerprint of warming. It has long been noted that greenhouse 
warming is primarily centered in the upper troposphere (Lindzen, 1999) and, indeed, model’s 
show that the maximum rate of warming is found in the upper tropical troposphere (Lee, et al, 
2007). Lindzen (2007) noted that temperature data from both satellites and balloons failed to 
show such a maximum. This, in turn, permitted one to bound the greenhouse contribution to 
surface warming, and led to an estimate of climate sensitivity that was appreciably less than 
found in current models. Once the implications of the observations were clearly identified, it 
was only a matter of time before the data were ‘corrected.’ The first attempt came quickly 
(Vinnikov et al, 2006) wherein the satellite data was reworked to show large warming in the 
upper troposphere, but the methodology was too blatant for the paper to be commonly cited13. 
There followed an attempt wherein the temperature data was rejected, and where temperature 
trends were inferred from wind data (Allen and Sherwood, 2008). Over sufficiently long 
periods, there is a balance between vertical wind shear and meridional temperature gradients (the 
thermal wind balance), and, with various assumptions concerning boundary conditions, one can, 
indeed, infer temperature trends, but the process involves a more complex, indirect, and 
uncertain procedure than is involved in directly measuring temperature. Moreover, as Pielke et al 
(2008) have noted, the results display a variety of inconsistencies. They are nonetheless held to 
resolve the discrepancy with models. 

 

The sixth example takes us into astrophysics. Since the 1970's, considerable attention has been 
given to something known as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. This paradox was first publicized by 
Sagan and Mullen (1972). They noted that the standard model for the sun robustly required that 
the sun brighten with time so that 2-3 billion years ago, it was about 30% dimmer than it is today 
(recall that a doubling of CO2 corresponds to only a 2% change in the radiative budget). One 
would have expected that the earth would have been frozen over, but the geological evidence 
suggested that the ocean was unfrozen. Attempts were made to account for this by an enhanced 
greenhouse effect. Sagan and Mullen (1972) suggested an ammonia rich atmosphere might 


14 Haqqmisra, a graduate student at the Pennsylvania State University, is apparently still 
seeking greenhouse solutions to the paradox. 

15 The refusal was not altogether surprising. The editor of Science, at the time, was 
Donald Kennedy, a biologist (and colleague of Paul Ehrlich and Stephen Schneider, both also 
members of Stanford’s biology department), who had served as president of Stanford University. 
His term, as president, ended with his involvement in fiscal irregularities such as charging to 
research overhead such expenses as the maintenance of the presidential yacht and the provision 
of flowers for his daughter’s wedding – offering peculiar evidence for the importance of grant 
overhead to administrators. Kennedy had editorially declared that the debate concerning global 
warming was over and that skeptical articles would not be considered. More recently, he has 
published a relatively pure example of Orwellian double-speak (Kennedy, 2008) wherein he 
called for better media coverage of global warming, where by ‘better’ he meant more carefully 
ignoring any questions about global warming alarm. As one might expect, Kennedy made 
extensive use of Oreskes’ paper. He also made the remarkably dishonest claim that the IPCC 
Summary for Policymakers was much more conservative than the scientific text. 

16 Oreskes, apart from overt errors, merely considered support to consist in agreement 
that there had been some warming, and that anthropogenic CO2 contributed part of the warming. 
Such innocent conclusions have essentially nothing to do with catastrophic projections. 
Moreover, most of the papers she looked at didn’t even address these issues; they simply didn’t 

work. Others suggested an atmosphere with as much as several bars of CO2 (recall that currently 
CO2 is about 380 parts per million of a 1 bar atmosphere). Finally, Kasting and colleagues tried 
to resolve the paradox with large amounts of methane. For a variety of reasons, all these efforts 
were deemed inadequate14 (Haqqmisra et al, 2008). There followed a remarkable attempt to get 
rid of the standard model of the sun (Sackman and Boothroyd, 2003). This is not exactly the 
same as altering the data, but the spirit is the same. The paper claimed to have gotten rid of the 
paradox. However, in fact, the altered model still calls for substantial brightening, and, 
moreover, does not seem to have gotten much acceptance among solar modelers. 

 

My last specific example involves the social sciences. Given that it has been maintained since at 
least 1988 that all scientists agree about alarming global warming, it is embarrassing to have 
scientists objecting to the alarm. To ‘settle’ the matter, a certain Naomi Oreskes published a 
paper in Science (Oreskes, 2004) purporting to have surveyed the literature and not have found a 
single paper questioning the alarm (Al Gore offers this study as proof of his own correctness in 
“Inconvenient Truth.”). Both Benny Peiser (a British sociologist) and Dennis Bray (an historian 
of science) noted obvious methodological errors, but Science refused to publish these rebuttals 
with no regard for the technical merits of the criticisms presented 15. Moreover, Oreskes was a 
featured speaker at the celebration of Spencer Weart’s thirty years as head of the American 
Institute of Physics’ Center for History of Physics. Weart, himself, had written a history of the 
global warming issue (Weart, 2003) where he repeated, without checking, the slander taken from 
a screed by Ross Gelbspan (The Heat is On) in which I was accused of being a tool of the fossil 
fuel industry. Weart also writes with glowing approval of Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. As far as 
Oreskes’ claim goes, it is clearly absurd16. A more carefully done study revealed a rather 
different picture (Schulte, 2007) 


question these conclusions. 

17 Perhaps unsurprisingly, The Potsdam Institute, home of Greenpeace’s Bill Hare, now 
has a Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. 

 

The above examples do not include the most convenient means whereby nominal scientists can 
support global warming alarm: namely, the matter of impacts. Here, scientists who generally 
have no knowledge of climate physics at all, are supported to assume the worst projections of 
global warming and imaginatively suggest the implications of such warming for whatever field 
they happen to be working in. This has led to the bizarre claims that global warming will 
contribute to kidney stones, obesity, cockroaches, noxious weeds, sexual imbalance in fish, etc. 
The scientists who participate in such exercises quite naturally are supportive of the catastrophic 
global warming hypothesis despite their ignorance of the underlying science17. 

 

 

 

4. Pressures to inhibit inquiry and problem solving 

 

It is often argued that in science the truth must eventually emerge. This may well be true, but, so 
far, attempts to deal with the science of climate change objectively have been largely forced to 
conceal such truths as may call into question global warming alarmism (even if only implicitly). 
The usual vehicle is peer review, and the changes imposed were made in order to get a given 
paper published. Publication is, of course, essential for funding, promotion, etc. The following 
examples are but a few from cases that I am personally familiar with. These, almost certainly, 
barely scratch the surface. What is generally involved, is simply the inclusion of an irrelevant 
comment supporting global warming accepted wisdom. When the substance of the paper is 
described, it is generally claimed that the added comment represents the ‘true’ intent of the paper 
In addition to the following examples, Appendix 2 offers excellent examples of ‘spin control.’. 

 

As mentioned in the previous section, one of the reports assessing the Mann et al Hockey Stick 
was prepared by a committee of the US National Research Counsel (a branch of the National 
Academy) chaired by Gerald North (North, 2006). The report concluded that the analysis used 
was totally unreliable for periods longer ago than about 400 years. In point of fact, the only basis 
for the 400 year choice was that this brought one to the midst of the Little Ice Age, and there is 
essentially nothing surprising about a conclusion that we are now warmer. Still, without any 
basis at all, the report also concluded that despite the inadequacy of the Mann et al analysis, the 
conclusion might still be correct. It was this baseless conjecture that received most of the 
publicity surrounding the report. 

 

In a recent paper, Roe (2006) showed that the orbital variations in high latitude summer 
insolation correlate excellently with changes in glaciation – once one relates the insolation 
properly to the rate of change of glaciation rather than to the glaciation itself. This provided 
excellent support for the Milankovich hypothesis. Nothing in the brief paper suggested the need 


for any other mechanism. Nonetheless, Roe apparently felt compelled to include an irrelevant 
caveat stating that the paper had no intention of ruling out a role for CO2. 

 

Choi and Ho (2006, 2008) published interesting papers on the optical properties of high tropical 
cirrus that largely confirmed earlier results by Lindzen, Chou and Hou (2001) on an important 
negative feedback (the iris effect – something that we will describe later in this section) that 
would greatly reduce the sensitivity of climate to increasing greenhouse gases. A proper 
comparison required that the results be normalized by a measure of total convective activity, and, 
indeed, such a comparison was made in the original version of Choi and Ho’s paper. However, 
reviewers insisted that the normalization be removed from the final version of the paper which 
left the relationship to the earlier paper unclear. 

 

Horvath and Soden (2008) found observational confirmation of many aspects of the iris effect, 
but accompanied these results with a repetition of criticisms of the iris effect that were irrelevant 
and even contradictory to their own paper. The point, apparently, was to suggest that despite 
their findings, there might be other reasons to discard the iris effect. Later in this section, I will 
return to these criticisms. However, the situation is far from unique. I have received preprints of 
papers wherein support for the iris was found, but where this was omitted in the published 
version of the papers 

 

In another example, I had originally submitted a paper mentioned in the previous section 
(Lindzen, 2007) to American Scientist, the periodical of the scientific honorary society in the US, 
Sigma Xi, at the recommendation of a former officer of that society. There followed a year of 
discussions, with an editor, David Schneider, insisting that I find a coauthor who would illustrate 
why my paper was wrong. He argued that publishing something that contradicted the IPCC was 
equivalent to publishing a paper that claimed that ‘Einstein's general theory of relativity is bunk.’ 
I suggested that it would be more appropriate for American Scientist to solicit a separate paper 
taking a view opposed to mine. This was unacceptable to Schneider, so I ended up publishing 
the paper elsewhere. Needless to add, Schneider has no background in climate physics, and as I 
have already noted, the president of Sigma Xi, at the time, was John Holdren. I should add that 
simple disagreement with conclusions of the IPCC has become a common basis for rejecting 
papers for publication in professional journals. An example will be presented later in this 
section. 

 

Despite all the posturing about global warming, more and more people are becoming aware of 
the fact that global mean temperatures have not increased statistically significantly since 1995. 
One need only look at the temperature records posted on the web by the Hadley Centre. The 
way this is acknowledged in the literature forms a good example of the spin that is currently 
required to maintain global warming alarm. Recall that the major claim of the IPCC 4th 
Assessment was that there was a 90% certainty that most of the warming of the preceding 50 
years was due to man (whatever that might mean). This required the assumption that what is 
known as natural internal variability (ie, the variability that exists without any external forcing 
and represents the fact that the climate system is never in equilibrium) is adequately handled by 


18 When I referred to the Smith et al paper at a hearing of the European Parliament, 
Professor Schellnhuber of the Potsdam Institute (which I mentioned in the previous section with 
respect to its connection to Greenpeace) loudly protested that I was being ‘dishonest’ by not 
emphasizing what he referred to as the main point in Smith et al: namely that global warming 
would return with a vengeance. 

19 The matter of ‘spin control’ warrants a paper by itself. In connection with the absence 
of warming over the past 13 years, the common response is that 7 of the last 10 warmest years in 
the record occurred during the past decade. This is actually to be expected, given that we are in a 
warm period, and the temperature is always fluctuating. However, it has nothing to do with 
trends. 

the existing climate models. The absence of any net global warming over the last dozen years or 
so, suggests that this assumption may be wrong. Smith et al (2007) (Smith is with the Hadley 
Centre in the UK) acknowledged this by pointing out that initial conditions had to reflect the 
disequilibrium at some starting date, and when these conditions were ‘correctly’ chosen, it was 
possible to better replicate the period without warming. This acknowledgment of error was 
accompanied by the totally unjustified assertion that global warming would resume with a 
vengeance in 200918. As 2009 approaches and the vengeful warming seems less likely to occur, 
a new paper came out (this time from the Max Planck Institute: Keenlyside et al, 2008) moving 
the date for anticipated resumption of warming to 2015. It is indeed a remarkable step 
backwards for science to consider models that have failed to predict the observed behavior of the 
climate to nonetheless have the same validity as the data19. 

 

Tim Palmer, a prominent atmospheric scientist at the European Centre for Medium Range 
Weather Forecasting, is quoted by Fred Pearce (Pearce, 2008) in the New Scientist as follows: 
"Politicians seem to think that the science is a done deal," says Tim Palmer. "I don't want to 
undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely 
uncertain." Pearce, however, continues “Palmer .. does not doubt that the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global 
climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC's 
predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. 
They fear that if the IPCC's predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in 
confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate. On top of this, some climate 
scientists believe that even the IPCC's global forecasts leave much to be desired. ...” Normally, 
one would think that undermining the credibility of something that is wrong is appropriate. 

 

Even in the present unhealthy state of science, papers that are overtly contradictory to the 
catastrophic warming scenario do get published (though not without generally being 
substantially watered down during the review process). They are then often subject to the 
remarkable process of ‘discreditation.’ This process consists in immediately soliciting attack 
papers that are published quickly as independent articles rather than comments. The importance 
of this procedure is as follows. Normally such criticisms are published as comments, and the 
original authors are able to respond immediately following the comment. Both the comment and 
reply are published together. By publishing the criticism as an article, the reply is published as a 


correspondence, which is usually delayed by several months, and the critics are permitted an 
immediate reply. As a rule, the reply of the original authors is ignored in subsequent references. 

 

In 2001, I published a paper (Lindzen, Chou and Hou) that used geostationary satellite data to 
suggest the existence of a strong negative feedback that we referred to as the Iris Effect. The gist 
of the feedback is that upper level stratiform clouds in the tropics arise by detrainment from 
cumulonimbus towers, that the radiative impact of the stratiform clouds is primarily in the 
infrared where they serve as powerful greenhouse components, and that the extent of the 
detrainment decreases markedly with increased surface temperature. The negative feedback 
resulted from the fact that the greenhouse warming due to the stratiform clouds diminished as the 
surface temperature increased, and increased as the surface temperature decreased – thus 
resisting the changes in surface temperature. The impact of the observed effect was sufficient to 
greatly reduce the model sensitivities to increasing CO2, and it was, moreover, shown that 
models failed to display the observed cloud behavior. The paper received an unusually intense 
review from four reviewers. Once the paper appeared, the peer review editor of the Bulletin of 
the American Meteorological Society, Irwin Abrams, was replaced by a new editor, Jeffrey 
Rosenfeld (holding the newly created position of Editor in Chief), and the new editor almost 
immediately accepted a paper criticizing our paper (Hartmann and Michelsen, 2002), publishing 
it as a separate paper rather than a response to our paper (which would have been the usual and 
appropriate procedure). In the usual procedure, the original authors are permitted to respond in 
the same issue. In the present case, the response was delayed by several months. Moreover, the 
new editor chose to label the criticism as follows: “Careful analysis of data reveals no shrinkage 
of tropical cloud anvil area with increasing SST.” In fact, this criticism was easily dismissed. 
The claim of Hartmann and Michelsen was that the effect we observed was due to the intrusion 
of midlatitude non-convective clouds into the tropics. If this were true, then the effect should 
have diminished as one restricted observations more closely to the equator, but as we showed 
(Lindzen, Chou and Hou, 2002), exactly the opposite was found. There were also separately 
published papers (again violating normal protocols allowing for immediate response) by Lin et 
al, 2002 and Fu, Baker and Hartmann, 2002, that criticized our paper by claiming that since the 
instruments on the geostationary satellite could not see the thin stratiform clouds that formed the 
tails of the clouds we could see, that we were not entitled to assume that the tails existed. 
Without the tails, the radiative impact of the clouds would be primarily in the visible where the 
behavior we observed would lead to a positive feedback; with the tails the effect is a negative 
feedback. The tails had long been observed, and the notion that they abruptly disappeared when 
not observed by an insufficiently sensitive sensor was absurd on the face of it, and the use of 
better instruments by Choi and Ho (2006, 2008) confirmed the robustness of the tails and the 
strong dominance of the infrared impact. However, as we have already seen, virtually any 
mention of the iris effect tends to be accompanied with a reference to the criticisms, a claim that 
the theory is ‘discredited,’ and absolutely no mention of the responses. This is even required of 
papers that are actually supporting the iris effect. 

 

Vincent Courtillot et al (2007) encountered a similar problem. (Courtillot, it should be noted, is 
the director of the Institute for the Study of the Globe at the University of Paris.) They found 


20 The strange identification of the CO2 caused global warming paradigm with general 
relativity theory, mentioned earlier in this section, is repeated by Rahmstorf. This repetition of 
odd claims may be a consequence of the networking described in footnote 7. 

that time series for magnetic field variations appeared to correlate well with temperature 
measurements – suggesting a possible non-anthropogenic source of forcing. This was 
immediately criticized by Bard and Delaygue (2008), and Courtillot et al were given the 
conventional right to reply which they did in a reasonably convincing manner. What followed, 
however, was highly unusual. Raymond Pierrehumbert (a professor of meteorology at the 
University of Chicago and a fanatical environmentalist) posted a blog supporting Bard and 
Delaygue, accusing Courtillot et al of fraud, and worse. Alan Robock (a coauthor of Vinnikov et 
al mentioned in the preceding section) perpetuated the slander in a letter circulated to all officers 
of the American Geophysical Union. The matter was then taken up (in December of 2007) by 
major French newspapers (LeMonde, Liberation, and Le Figaro) that treated Pierrehumbert’s 
defamation as fact. As in the previous case, all references to the work of Courtillot et al refer to 
it as ‘discredited’ and no mention is made of their response. Moreover, a major argument against 
the position of Courtillot et al is that it contradicted the claim of the IPCC. 

 

In 2005, I was invited by Erneso Zedillo to give a paper at a symposium he was organizing at his 
Center for Sustainability Studies at Yale. The stated topic of the symposium was Global 
Warming Policy After 2012, and the proceedings were to appear in a book to by entitled Global 
Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. Only two papers dealing with global warming science were 
presented: mine and one by Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute. The remaining papers all 
essentially assumed an alarming scenario and proceeded to discuss economics, impacts, and 
policy. Rahmstorf and I took opposing positions, but there was no exchange at the meeting, and 
Rahmstorf had to run off to another meeting. As agreed, I submitted the manuscript of my talk, 
but publication was interminably delayed, perhaps because of the presence of my paper. In any 
event, the Brookings Institute (a centrist Democratic Party think tank) agreed to publish the 
volume. When the volume finally appeared (Zedillo, 2008), I was somewhat shocked to see that 
Rahmstorf’s paper had been modified from what he presented, and had been turned into an attack 
not only on my paper but on me personally20. I had received no warning of this; nor was I given 
any opportunity to reply. Inquiries to the editor and the publisher went unanswered. Moreover, 
the Rahmstorf paper was moved so that it immediately followed my paper. The reader is 
welcome to get a copy of the exchange, including my response, on my web site (Lindzen-
Rahmstorf Exchange, 2008), and judge the exchange for himself. 

 

One of the more bizarre tools of global warming revisionism is the posthumous alteration of 
skeptical positions. 

 

Thus, the recent deaths of two active and professionally prominent skeptics, Robert Jastrow (the 
founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, now headed by James 
Hansen), and Reid Bryson (a well known climatologist at the University of Wisconsin) were 
accompanied by obituaries suggesting deathbed conversions to global warming alarm. 

 


The death of another active and prominent skeptic, William Nierenberg (former director of the 
Scripps Oceanographic Institute), led to the creation of a Nierenberg Prize that is annually 
awarded to an environmental activist. The most recent recipient was James Hansen who 
Nierenberg detested. 

 

Perhaps the most extraordinary example of this phenomenon involves a paper by Singer, Starr, 
and Revelle (1991). In this paper, it was concluded that we knew too little about climate to 
implement any drastic measures. Revelle, it may be recalled, was the professor that Gore credits 
with introducing him to the horrors of CO2 induced warming. There followed an intense effort 
led by a research associate at Harvard, Justin Lancaster, in coordination with Gore staffers, to 
have Revelle’s name posthumously removed from the published paper. It was claimed that 
Singer had pressured an old and incompetent man to allow his name to be used. To be sure, 
everyone who knew Revelle, felt that he had been alert until his death. There followed a law suit 
by Singer, where the court found in Singer’s favor. The matter is described in detail in Singer 
(2003). 

 

Occasionally, prominent individual scientists do publicly express skepticism. The means for 
silencing them are fairly straightforward. 

 

Will Happer, director of research at the Department of Energy (and a professor of physics at 
Princeton University) was simply fired from his government position after expressing doubts 
about environmental issues in general. His case is described in Happer (2003). 

 

Michael Griffin, NASA’s administrator, publicly expressed reservations concerning global 
warming alarm in 2007. This was followed by a barrage of ad hominem attacks from individuals 
including James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. Griffin has since stopped making any 
public statements on this matter. 

 

Freeman Dyson, an acknowledged great in theoretical physics, managed to publish a piece in 
New York Review of Books (Dyson, 2008), where in the course of reviewing books by Nordhaus 
and Zedillo (the latter having been referred to earlier), he expressed cautious support for the 
existence of substantial doubt concerning global warming. This was followed by a series of 
angry letters as well as condemnation on the realclimate.org web site including ad hominem 
attacks. Given that Dyson is retired, however, there seems little more that global warming 
enthusiasts can do. However, we may hear of a deathbed conversion in the future. 

 

5. Dangers for science and society 

 

This paper has attempted to show how changes in the structure of scientific activity over the past 
half century have led to extreme vulnerability to political manipulation. In the case of climate 
change, these vulnerabilities have been exploited to a remarkable extent. The dangers that the 
above situation poses for both science and society are too numerous to be discussed in any sort 
of adequate way in this paper. It should be stressed that the climate change issue, itself, 


21 A curious aspect of the profoundly unalarming Indian report is the prominent 
involvement in the preparation of the report by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (an economist and long 
term UN bureaucrat) who heads the IPCC. Dr. Pachauri has recently been urging westerners to 
reduce meat consumption in order to save the earth from destruction by global warming. 

constitutes a major example of the dangers intrinsic to the structural changes in science. 

 

As concerns the specific dangers pertaining to the climate change issue, we are already seeing 
that the tentative policy moves associated with ‘climate mitigation’ are contributing to 
deforestation, food riots, potential trade wars, inflation, energy speculation and overt corruption 
as in the case of ENRON (one of the leading lobbyists for Kyoto prior to its collapse). There is 
little question that global warming has been exploited many governments and corporations (and 
not just by ENRON; Lehman Brothers, for example, was also heavily promoting global warming 
alarm, and relying on the advice of James Hansen, etc.) for their own purposes, but it is unclear 
to what extent such exploitation has played an initiating role in the issue. The developing world 
has come to realize that the proposed measures endanger their legitimate hopes to escape 
poverty, and, in the case of India, they have, encouragingly, led to an assessment of climate 
issues independent of the ‘official’ wisdom (Government of India, 200821). For purposes of this 
paper, however, I simply want to briefly note the specific implications for science and its 
interaction with society. Although society is undoubtedly aware of the imperfections of science, 
it has rarely encountered a situation such as the current global warming hysteria where 
institutional science has so thoroughly committed itself to policies which call for massive 
sacrifices in well being world wide. Past scientific errors did not lead the public to discard the 
view that science on the whole was a valuable effort. However, the extraordinarily shallow basis 
for the commitment to climate catastrophe, and the widespread tendency of scientists to use 
unscientific means to arouse the public’s concerns, is becoming increasingly evident, and the 
result could be a reversal of the trust that arose from the triumphs of science and technology 
during the World War II period. Further, the reliance by the scientific community on fear as a 
basis for support, may, indeed, have severely degraded the ability of science to usefully address 
problems that need addressing. It should also be noted that not all the lessons of the World War 
II period have been positive. Massive crash programs such as the Manhattan Project are not 
appropriate to all scientific problems. In particular, such programs are unlikely to be effective in 
fields where the basic science is not yet in place. Rather, they are best suited to problems where 
the needs are primarily in the realm of engineering. 

 

Although the change in scientific culture has played an important role in making science more 
vulnerable to exploitation by politics, the resolution of specific issues may be possible without 
explicitly addressing the structural problems in science. In the US, where global warming has 
become enmeshed in partisan politics, there is a natural opposition to exploitation which is not 
specifically based on science itself. However, the restoration of the traditional scientific 
paradigm will call for more serious efforts. Such changes are unlikely to come from any fiat. 
Nor is it likely to be implemented by the large science bureaucracies that have helped create the 
problem in the first place. A potentially effective approach would be to change the incentive 
structure of science. The current support mechanisms for science is one where the solution of a 


scientific problem is rewarded by ending support. This hardly encourages the solution of 
problems or the search for actual answers. Nor does it encourage meaningfully testing 
hypotheses. The alternative calls for a measure of societal trust, patience, and commitment to 
elitism that hardly seems consonant with the contemporary attitudes. It may, however, be 
possible to make a significant beginning by carefully reducing the funding for science. Many 
scientists would be willing to accept a lower level of funding in return for greater freedom and 
stability. Other scientists may find the trade-off unacceptable and drop out of the enterprise. 
The result, over a period of time, could be a gradual restoration of a better incentive structure. 
One ought not underestimate the institutional resistance to such changes, but the alternatives are 
proving to be much worse. Some years ago, I described some of what I have discussed here at a 
meeting in Erice (Lindzen, 2005). Richard Garwin (who some regard as the inventor of the H-
bomb) rose indignantly to state that he did not want to hear such things. Quite frankly, I also 
don’t want to hear such things. However, I fear that ignoring such things will hardly constitute a 
solution, and a solution may be necessary for the sake of the scientific enterprise. 

 

 

Acknowledgments. The author wishes to thank Dennis Ambler, Willie Soon, Lubos Motl 
and Nigel Lawson for useful comments and assistance. 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1 

 

July 11, 2008 

 

On behalf of the organizing committee, and workshop co-sponsors IPCC, WCRP, IGBP, the US National 
Science Foundation, and Climate Central, we take great pleasure in inviting you to attend a “Joint IPCC-
WCRP-IGBP Workshop: New Science Directions and Activities Relevant to the IPCC AR5” to be 
held March 3—6, 2009. The Workshop will be hosted by the International Pacific Research Center 
(IPRC) at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, Hawaii. The workshop is open to WG1 LAs and CLAs 
from all four assessments. The proceedings will be made available to IPCC. 

 

This workshop has several major goals: 

1) New science results and research directions relevant for the upcoming IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 
(AR5) will be discussed, with a view to the manner in which new observations and models can ensure 
their fullest possible consideration in the upcoming AR5. This could include but are not limited to e.g., 
ice sheet instability, land use parameterizations, aerosols and their effects on clouds and climate, new 
attribution results beyond temperature, and improved ENSO projections. 

 

2) Subsequent to the AR4, an international planning process has begun to perform a coordinated set of 
climate model experiments with AOGCMs as well as emerging Earth System Models (ESMs, including 
new aspects of climate-vegetation and carbon cycle feedbacks) to quantify time-evolving regional climate 
change using mitigation/adaptation scenarios. These experiments will address key feedbacks in climate 


system response to increasing greenhouse gases. For example, carbon cycle feedback was identified as 
one of the main uncertainties for the upper end of future climate projections in the AR4. An international 
process to produce a set of mitigation scenarios for use in WG1, termed Representative Concentration 
Pathways (RCPs), will culminate in the fall of 2008 when the scenarios will be turned over to the WG1 
modeling groups. The ingredients in these scenarios (emissions and concentrations of various 
constituents) will be reviewed at the workshop to ensure they are compatible with what is required by the 
new Earth System Models. It is essential that scientists gathered at the workshop examine and discuss 
them in detail to ensure compatibility and consistency with the new ESMs, particularly with regard to 
land use/land cover and emissions, which will also be a central topic at the workshop. Additionally, 
output requirements for the model simulations and a strategy for extension of long-term simulations to 
2300 will be discussed. 

 

3) Decadal climate prediction has recently emerged as a research activity that combines aspects of 
seasonal/interannual predictions and longer term emission scenario-driven climate change. Recent 
research results, as well as plans for coordinated experiments to address science problems associated with 
the decadal prediction, will be discussed at the workshop. 

 

 

For planning purposes, please register for the workshop at 
http://www.regonline.com/Checkin.asp?EventId=633780 

before September 1, 2008. Hotel information is available on that web site, and participants are 
encouraged to make their hotel reservations as soon as possible because reservations for the 
various hotel options are on a first come first served basis. Since there are large numbers of 
potential participants, we will need to know by that early date (September 1) whether or not you 
plan on attending so we can make appropriate logistical arrangements. A $100 registration fee 
per attendee will be collected at the workshop. Attendees to the workshop will be largely self-
funded similar to the IPCC model analysis workshop held in Hawaii in March, 2005. 

 

We look forward to this opportunity to have WG1 LAs and CLAs from all four assessments 
gather as a group for a science meeting for the first time in the history of the IPCC. The 
outcomes from this unique workshop will provide important scientific direction as input to the 
early planning stages for the IPCC AR5. 

Best regards from the organizing committee, 

 

Gerald Meehl, Jonathan Overpeck, Susan Solomon, Thomas Stocker, and Ron Stouffer 

 

Appendix 2 

 

Last year, a TV program opposing global warming alarmism, The Great Global Warming 
Swindle, was aired by channel 4 in Britain. The IPCC brought a complaint against the producers 
of the program to the British Office of Communications (OfCom). The OfCom held that the 
producers did not give the IPCC sufficient time to respond (they were given about a week), but 
that the program did not materially mislead the public. Steven McIntyre on his web site, 
www.climateaudit.org, analyzes the decision as well as the dishonest responses of the IPCC 
officials to the OfCom findings. It is a lovely example of self-refutation. That is to say, the 


IPCC officials demonstrated that they were acting in a political capacity in the very process of 
denying this. 

 

Ofcom: The IPCC Complaint 

 

By Steve McIntyre 

 

Ofcom’s disposition of the IPCC Complaint is here page 43. There are many interesting 
aspects to this decision that are distinct from any of the others. Ofcom’s actual finding is 
extremely narrow. IT rejected 2 of 6 complaints. On 3 of 6, it determined that the producers 
had provided notice to IPCC but the notice on Feb 27, 2007 did not leave IPCC with 
“reasonable time” to respond prior to the airing on March 8, 2007 (though Ofcom itself 
states that “three working days” is a “reasonable time” for the parties to file an appeal of 
the present decision. They also determined that the producers failed to give IPCC adequate 
notice that someone in the production would say that they were “politically driven”. Had 
the producers sent their email of Feb 27, 2007 on (say) Feb 20, 2007, including a mention in 
the email that one of the contributors stated that IPCC was “politically driven”, then the 
Swindle producers would appear to have been immune from the present findings. Little 
things do matter. 

 

The two rejected claims are themselves rather interesting and make you scratch your head. 
As discussed below, Swindle contributors were said to have claimed that IPCC had 
predicted climate disaster and the northward migration of malaria as a result of global 
warming. IPCC denied ever making such claims and apparently felt that its reputation was 
sullied by being associated with such claims. These two matters were decided on other 
grounds, but many readers will be interested to read more about IPCC disassociating itself 
from claims that global warming would cause northward migration of malaria or 
predictions of climate disaster. 

 

In addition, in its complaint, IPCC made grandiose claims about its “open and transparent 
process” and the role of review editors, describing the process as being in the public domain 
and by its nature designed to avoid “undue influence” of any reviewer. This will come as 
somewhat of a surprise to CA readers, who are familiar with the avoidance of IPCC 
procedures by Ammann and Briffa and the seemingly casual performance of review editor 
Mitchell and who have been following the relentless stonewalling by IPCC and IPCC 
officials of requests for specific information pertaining to this allegedly “open and 
transparent process”. 

 

Two Rejected Complaints 

They discarded two parts of the complaint entirely. 

 

IPCC denied that it had claimed that malaria “will” spread as a result of global warming 
(as stated by Channel 4) and said that it was unfair for Channel 4 to have broadcast this 
claim without their having an adequate opportunity to respond. The claim was decided on 
other grounds (that the allegation by Paul Reiter did not mention specifically mention 


IPCC). However, many readers will be surprised and interested to know that IPCC 
considers that its reputation is diminished by attributing to it the view that malaria will 
spread as a result of global warming. 

 

IPCC complained that the “programme falsely claimed that its FAR (1990) predicted 
“climatic disaster as a result of global warming” without an opportunity to defend itself 
against the indignity of being accused of making such a claim. It’s a relief to the rest of us 
to know that not only is the IPCC not predicting climatic disaster, but it considers being 
associated with such a claim to be an insult. Ofcom considered some interesting 
contemporary evidence, including a speech by Margaret Thatcher, the scientific content of 
which was approved by Houghton, and came to the view that this was not an unreasonable 
characterization. Their decision on this issue stated: 

 

 the Committee considered that the comment that described the FAR (1990) as predicting 
“climatic disaster as a result of global warming” was not an allegation against the IPCC 
and was not unfair to it. It was not, therefore, incumbent on the programme makers to have 
offered the IPCC an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to this particular 
comment. 

 

The most interesting part of these two issues were the IPCC defences. 

 

Three Issues where the notice was insufficiently timely 

 

On three parts of the Complaint (Reiter’s criticism of the malaria section of the IPCC 
report, Reiter’s criticism of how IPCC made up its author lists, Seitz’ criticism of the SAR-
Santer fiasco), Ofcom found that Swindle had provided notice to IPCC within the 
requirements, but had failed to provide IPCC with enough time to respond. 

 

What would be a reasonable amount of time? Ofcom says in their Guidelines for the 
handling of standards complaints and cases (in programmes and sponsorship) that three 
working days is a “reasonable time” for an appeal, 5 working days for broadcasters to 
deliver any requested material and 10 working days to deliver certain sorts of detailed 
written submissions. 

 

While the producers had preliminary contact with IPCC in October 2006 (as a result of 
which they were referred to a website), the first notice to IPCC that they would be 
presenting the Reiter and Seitz allegations came on Feb 26, 2007 (a Monday). to which 
there was no response. A follow-up email was sent three days later on March 1, 2007, again 
with no response. At the time of the show’s first airing on March 8, 2007, ten days (8 
working days) after the first notice letter, IPCC had still sent no response. Nor did it send 
one prior to the second airing. Ofcom noted: 

 

 the IPCC is a large organisation with considerable resources at its disposal and that it 
employs a dedicated Information and Communications Officer. On the face of it, these 
factors might be taken to suggest the IPCC should have been in a position to respond to the 


programme makers’ emails (subject to being provided with sufficient information about the 
allegations that would be made in the programme) 

 

On the other hand, Ofcom noted that the producers had failed to properly inform IPCC of 
the deadlines: 

 

 As mentioned above, it was significant that the programme maker’s email of 26 February 
2007 gave the IPCC no indication of when its response was required and the follow-up 
email of 1 March 2007 (sent at 7.33pm) subsequently gave a deadline of the following day. 
Neither of these emails indicated the date of broadcast. 

 

 Taking into account all the above factors, the Committee considered that it was 
unreasonable for the programme makers to have expected the IPCC to understand that its 
response was required in a matter of days, and that it was not reasonable to expect the 
IPCC to be able to provide a response within the one day of being advised of the deadline. 
The Committee therefore found that the opportunity to respond had not been offered in a 
timely way. 

 

On these particular findings, there’s a process lesson about the need for clear and 
unequivocal notice. In this particular case, it seems highly unlikely that IPCC was going to 
bother responding in any event. So the producers could easily have avoided this particular 
problem merely by giving clearer and somewhat more informative notice. For example, had 
they sent out the email on Feb 20, 2007 instead of Feb 27, 2007, notifying the IPCC of their 
deadline, then it’s hard to see how these parts of the IPCC complaint could have even got as 
far as they did. 

 

I note that it appears that IPCC itself did not even file the “IPCC Complaint”. It appears to 
be another concoction by Rado and associates. Their website says that: 

 Sir John Houghton … co-authorised our Fairness complaint on behalf of the IPCC…. Dr 
Pachauri co-authorised our Fairness complaint on behalf of the IPCC. …Martin Parry also 
co-authorised our Fairness complaint on behalf of the IPCC… Professor [Robert] Watson co-
authorised our Fairness complaint on behalf of the IPCC.” 

 

which I take this as evidence that IPCC itself did not author the complaint. Normally, in 
order to be heard by Ofcom, a “fairness” complaint has to be made by the person directly 
affected. There are situations in which a third party can be authorized to make the 
complaint; I haven’t examined whether these situations apply here. 

 

However the form of IPCC “authorization” seems highly curious. John Houghton 
supposedly “co-authorised our Fairness complaint on behalf of the IPCC”. While Houghton 
has obviously been an important figure in the IPCC movement, he is not listed at the IPCC 
website as one of its present officers and would not appear to have sufficient current 
authority to “authorize” the complaint. Robert Watson’s appearance on this list is also 
interesting. Watson is likewise not listed as an current IPCC officer; Rado’s website states 
that Watson is currently DEFRA’s Chief Scientific Adviser. That a DEFRA employee should 


perceive himself as having the authority to authorize the commencement of an action in the 
U.K. on behalf of IPCC, which, under other circumstance, asserts its immunity rights as an 
international organization, is intriguing to say the least. 

 

A “Political” Organization 

 

The last “issue” in play was the statement by Philip Stott that IPCC was a “politically 
driven” organization. 

 

Dr Philip Stott: “The IPCC, like any UN body, is political. The final conclusions are 
politically driven.” 

 

This matter differed somewhat from the 3 considered under the previous head in that no 
notice was given to the IPCC in their Feb 26, 2007 email that the production would say that 
they are “political”. 

 

In its defence, Channel 4 said 

 

 the programme contributor, Dr Philip Stott, was merely making a statement of fact. 
Channel 4 said the programme made the important and valid point that the IPCC is 
political as well as scientific. Channel 4 said the IPCC chairmen and authors are nominated 
by governments and the reports are viewed by government officials prior to publication. 
Further, Channel 4 said the IPCC had been criticised on a number of occasions for being 
hampered by political interference. Channel 4 therefore maintained it was entirely fair for 
Professor Stott to state that the IPCC is “politically driven”. 

 

The IPCC response will be particularly intriguing to Climate Audit readers who have 
followed IPCC’s refusal to provide a complete archive of its Review Comments and 
Responses (in direct breach of their own formal procedures), a refusal abetted by 
corresponding refusals of national FOI requests. Ofcom summarizes their response: 

 

 In relation to the IPCC being “politically driven”, the IPCC said that the requirement for 
openness and transparency in its processes ensured that it was impossible for any undue 
interference to take place or any undue pressure to be applied by any reviewer (government or 
otherwise). 

 

 The IPCC said the government expert reviewer is free to ask any lead author to 
reconsider what they have written, but based solely on scientific content. The lead author 
will then consider the comment or request for change. If the lead author then wishes to 
make the change, he/she has to account for the decision to his/her review editor, who will 
make the final decision. Such changes must then be documented and the results made 
public. 

 

 The IPCC said that, given the IPCC’s own procedures, Channel 4’s arguments in relation 
to this head of complaint were either ill-informed or disingenuous. 


 

Huh? This is not a true description of the process that I’ve experienced or that has been 
documented here. “Disingenuous” - they must be taking etiquette lessons from Michael 
Mann. 

 

In terms of my own personal experience, we know that Ammann evaded the formal “open 
and transparent” process by sending review comments about our work outside the properly 
instituted process and that the parties have subsequently refused to produce the 
presumably adverse comments. Did these exchanges result in “undue interference” or 
“undue pressure” by a reviewer? The purpose of the “open and transparent” process is to do 
what IPCC represented to Ofcom that it did. Too bad that it’s not a true description. 

 

Similarly with the role of the Review Editors. IPCC testified to Ofcom that the “review 
editor” made the final decision. But Review Editor Mitchell has said that these decisions 
were up to Briffa and the chapter authors. Although IPCC says here that this process is 
“public”, IPCC has refused to provide Mitchell’s comments and Mitchell has concocted 
absurd and untrue reasons to avoid producing the comments (even claiming that he acted 
as an IPCC review editor in a “personal” capacity and that he has destroyed all his IPCC 
correspondence). 

 

Here’s how Ofcom decided this matter: 

 

 In the Committee’s opinion, viewers would have understood from the full section (quoted 
above) that the IPCC was not a purely scientific body and that its ‘scientific’ conclusions 
were significantly tainted by political interests. 

 

 The Committee considered that such an impression went to the core of the IPCC’s 
function and reputation: in this regard it noted that the IPCC was set up following 
international governmental accord with the aim of producing objective scientific 
assessments to inform policy and decision making worldwide. The Committee considered 
that “politically driven” was a strong and potentially damaging allegation which, within the 
context of this part of the programme, suggested direct political influence and was clearly 
intended to call into question the credibility of the IPCC…. 

 

 … In the circumstances, the Committee concluded that the IPCC was not afforded a 
timely or appropriate opportunity to respond to the significant allegation that the 
conclusions of the IPCC were “politically driven”. This resulted in unfairness to the IPCC in 
the programme as broadcast. 

 

Summary 

 

So what exactly did IPCC win? Ofcom said that the producers should have given them more 
adequate notice time for Reiter’s allegations about the review of the malaria section and the 
listing of authors and for Seitz’ allegations about SAR and for the assertion that they would 
say that IPCC was “politically driven”. 


 

Did Ofcom opine on whether IPCC was giving good or bad reports? Nope. It stuck to 
knitting and rendered carefully reasoned decisions on whether the producers gave adequate 
notice to someone being criticized, as required under the Broadcasting Code. 

 

“Vindication” 

 

Now look at the crowing about this decision by IPCC officials. 

 

Pachauri: 

 

 We are pleased to note that Ofcom has vindicated the IPCC’s claim against Channel Four 
in spirit and in substance, and upheld most of the formal complaints made by those who 
respect the IPCC process. It is heartening to see that the review process of the IPCC, and the 
credibility of the publications of the IPCC were upheld, as was the claim that Channel Four 
did not give the Panel adequate time to respond to most of their allegations. The IPCC is an 
organization that brings together the best experts from all over the world committed to 
working on an objective assessment of all aspects of climate change. The relevance and 
integrity of its work cannot be belittled by misleading or irresponsible reporting. We express 
our appreciation of the Fairness Committee at Ofcom, and are satisfied with their rulings on 
this matter. 

 

Some of this is simply untrue. Ofcom did not “uphold” the review process of the IPCC or the 
credibility of IPCC publications. Neither did it trash them. It simply did not consider them. 
Pachauri is totally misrepresenting the decision. 

Houghton: 

 

 The ruling today from Ofcom regarding the Great Global Warming Swindle programme 
has exposed the misleading and false information regarding the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC) that was contained in that programme and that has been widely 
disseminated by the climate denying community. The integrity of the IPCC’s reports has 
therefore been confirmed as has their value as a source of accurate and reliable information 
about climate change. 

 

Again, all completely untrue. The Ofcom decision did “not expose the misleading and false 
information” regarding IPCC nor did it “confirm the integrity of the IPCC reports”. Nor did 
it endorse the programme nor did it trash the integrity of the reports. It didn’t make any 
decision on them one way or another. It simply said that the producers failed to give IPCC 
enough notice to respond. 

 

Robert Watson 

 

 I am pleased that Ofcom recognized the serious inaccuracies in the Global Warming 
Swindle and has helped set the record straight. 

 


Again untrue. Ofcom did nothing of the sort. It made no attempt whatever to sort out the 
scientific disputes. 

 

Martin Parry: 

 

 This is excellent news. People and policymakers need to have confidence in the science of 
climate change. The reputation of the IPCC as the source of dependable and high quality 
information has been fully upheld by this Ofcom ruling. Channel 4’s Great Global Warming 
Swindle was itself a disreputable attempt to swindle the public of the confidence it needs in 
scientific advice. 

 

Again completely untrue. The Ofcom ruling did not “uphold” the “reputation of the IPCC as 
the source of dependable and high quality information”. Nor did it disparage its reputation. 
It simply said that IPCC didn’t get enough time to respond. 

 

 

Appendix 3 

 

From the Boston Globe 

 

Convincing the climate-change skeptics 

 

By John P. Holdren | August 4, 2008 

 

THE FEW climate-change "skeptics" with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in 
the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. And 
this muddying of the waters of public discourse is being magnified by the parroting of these arguments by 
a larger population of amateur skeptics with no scientific credentials at all. Long-time observers of public 
debates about environmental threats know that skeptics about such matters tend to move, over time, 
through three stages. First, they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it. (In this case, "Climate 

isn't changing in unusual ways or, if it is, human activities are not the cause.") Then they tell you you're 
right but it doesn't matter. ("OK, it's changing and humans are playing a role, but it won't do 

much harm.") Finally, they tell you it matters but it's too late to do anything about it. ("Yes, climate 
disruption is going to do some real damage, but it's too late, too difficult, or too costly to avoid that, so 
we'll just have to hunker down and suffer.") 

 

All three positions are represented among the climate-change skeptics who infest talk shows, Internet 
blogs, letters to the editor, op-ed pieces, and cocktail-party conversations. The few with credentials in 
climate-change science have nearly all shifted in the past few years from the first category to the second, 
however, and jumps from the second to the third are becoming more frequent. All three factions are 
wrong, but the first is the worst. Their arguments, such as they are, suffer from two huge deficiencies. 

 

First, they have not come up with any plausible alternative culprit for the disruption of global climate that 
is being observed, for example, a culprit other than the greenhouse-gas buildups in the atmosphere that 
have been measured and tied beyond doubt to human activities. (The argument that variations in the 
sun's output might be responsible fails a number of elementary scientific tests.) 

 

Second, having not succeeded in finding an alternative, they haven't even tried to do what would be 


logically necessary if they had one, which is to explain how it can be that everything modern science tells 
us about the interactions of greenhouse gases with energy flow in the atmosphere is wrong. 

Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by the denier fringe should ask themselves how it 
is possible, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that: The leaderships of the national 
academies of sciences of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia, 
China, and India, among others, are on record saying that global climate change is real, caused mainly by 
humans, and reason for early, concerted action. This is also the overwhelming majority view among the 
faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every first-rank university in the world. 

 

All three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for studies of the 
atmosphere (the 1995 chemistry prize to Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, for figuring 
out what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream. 

US polls indicate that most of the amateur skeptics are Republicans. These Republican skeptics should 
wonder how presidential candidate John McCain could have been taken in. He has castigated the Bush 
administration for wasting eight years in inaction on climate change, and the policies he says he would 
implement as president include early and deep cuts in US greenhouse-gas emissions. (Senator Barack 
Obama's position is similar.) 

 

The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced 
greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed - and continues to delay - the 
development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies 
commensurate with the challenge. The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. 
Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again. 

 

John P. Holdren is a professor in the Kennedy School of Government and the Department of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences at Harvard and the director of the Woods Hole Research Center. 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

 

Allen, R.J. and S.C. Sherwood (2008) Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere 
deduced from thermal winds, Nature 25 May 2008; doi:10.1038/ngeo208 1-5 

 

Arnell, N.W. (2004) Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-
economic scenarios, Global Environmental Change, 14, 31-52. 

 

Bard, E.and G. Delaygue (2008) Comment on “Are there connections between the Earth's 
magnetic field and climate?” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 265 302–307 

 

Barron, E.J. (1987) Eocene Equator-to-Pole Surface Ocean Temperatures: A Significant Climate 
Problem? PALEOCEANOGRAPHY, 2, 729–739 

 

Bush, A.B.G. and S.G.H. Philander (1998a) The late Cretaceous: simulation with a coupled 
atmosphere-ocean general circulation model. Paleoceanography 12 495-516 


 

Bush, A.B.G. and S.G.H. Philander (1998b) The role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in 
tropical cooling during the last glacial maximum. Science 279 1341-1344 

 

Bush, V. (1945) Science: the Endless Frontier. http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/vbush1945.htm 

 

Choi, Y.-S., and C.-H. Ho (2006), Radiative effect of cirrus with different optical properties over 
the tropics in MODIS and CERES observations, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L21811, 
doi:10.1029/2006GL027403 

 

Choi, Y.-S., and C.-H. Ho (2008), Validation of the cloud property retrievals from the MTSAT-
1R imagery using MODIS observations, International Journal of Remote Sensing, accepted. 

 

Chou, M.-D., R.S. Lindzen, and A.Y. Hou (2002b) Comments on “The Iris hypothesis: A 
negative or positive cloud feedback?” J. Climate, 15, 2713-2715. 

 

CLIMAP Project (1976) The surface of the ice-age Earth. Science 191:1131-1136 

 

Courtillot, V., Y. Gallet, J.-L. Le Mouël, F. Fluteau, and A. Genevey (2007) Are there 
connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 
253 328–339 

 

Crichton, M. (2004) State of Fear, Harper Collins, 624 pp. 

 

Crowley, T. J. (2000) CLIMAP SSTs re-revisited. Climate Dynamics 16:241-255 

 

Demming, D. (2005) Global warming, the politicization of science, and Michael Crichton’s State 
of Fear, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 19, 247-256. 

 

Dyson, F. (2008) The Question of Global Warming, New York Review of Books, 55, No. 10, June 
12, 2008. 

 

Fu, Q., Baker, M., and Hartman, D. L.(2002) Tropical cirrus and water vapor: an effective Earth 
infrared iris feedback? Atmos. Chem. Phys., 2, 31–37 

 

Gelbspan, R. (1998) The Heat is On, Basic Books, 288 pp. 

 

Government of India (2008) National Action Plan on Climate Change, 56pp. 

 

Happer, W. (2003) Harmful Politicization of Science in Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of 
Policymaking edited by Michael Gough, Hoover Institution 313 pp (pp 27-48). 

 

Haqq-Misra, J.D., S.D. Domagal-Goldman, P. J. Kasting, and J.F. Kasting (2008) A Revised, 


hazy methane greenhouse for the Archean Earth. Astrobiology in press 

 

Hartmann, D. L., and M. L. Michelsen (2002) No evidence for iris. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 83, 
249–254. 

 

Held, I.M. and B.J. Soden (2006) Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming, 
Journal of Climate., 19, 5686-5699. 

 

Holland, D. (2007) Bias And Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair and 
its Implications, Energy & Environment, 18, 951-983. 

 

Horvath, A., and B. Soden, ( 2008) Lagrangian Diagnostics of Tropical Deep Convection and Its 
Effect upon Upper-Tropospheric Humidity, Journal of Climate, 21(5), 1013–1028 

 

Huber, M. (2008) A Hotter Greenhouse? Science 321 353-354 

 

IPCC, 1990: Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment [Houghton, J. T et al., (eds.)]. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 362 pp. 

 

IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working 
Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
[Houghton et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 
York, NY, USA, 572 pp 

 

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., et 
al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 
881 pp. 

 

IPCC, 2007:Solomon et al., (eds.) 2007: ‘Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change’. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New 
York, NY, USA. (Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/) 

 

Keenlyside, N. S., M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh and E. Roeckner (2008) Advancing 
decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453 84-88 

 

Kennedy, D., 2008: Science, Policy, and the Media, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts & 
Sciences, 61, 18-22. 

 

Kiehl, J.T. (2007) Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. Geophys. 
Res. Lttrs., 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383 

 


Lee, M.I., M.J. Suarez, I.S. Kang, I. M. Held, and D. Kim (2008) A Moist Benchmark 
Calculation for the Atmospheric General Circulation Models, J.Clim., in press. 

 

Lin, B., B. Wielicki, L. Chambers, Y. Hu, and K.-M. Xu, (2002) The iris hypothesis: A negative 
or positive cloud feedback? J. Climate, 15, 3–7. 

 

Lindzen, R.S. (1999) The Greenhouse Effect and its problems. Chapter 8 in Climate Policy After 
Kyoto (T.R. Gerholm, editor), Multi-Science Publishing Co., Brentwood, UK, 170pp. 

 

Lindzen, R.S. (2005) Understanding common climate claims. in Proceedings of the 34th 
International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, R. Raigaini, editor, World 
Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 472pp. (pp. 189-210) 

 

Lindzen, R.S. (2007) Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-
950. 

 

Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2001) Does the Earth have an adaptive infrared iris? 
Bull. Amer. Met. Soc. 82, 417-432. 

 

Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Comments on “No evidence for iris.” Bull. 
Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 1345–1348 

 

Lindzen-Rahmstorf Exchange (2008) http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/L_R-
Exchange.pdf 

 

Mann, M.E., R.E. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1998) Global-scale temperature patterns and 
climate forcing over the past six centuries,” Nature, 392, 779-787. 

 

Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. (1999) Northern Hemisphere Temperatures 
During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research 
Letters, 

26, 759-762. 

 

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2003) Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and 
Northern hemispheric average temperature series,” Energy and Environment, 14, 751-771. 

 

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2005a) The M&M critique of MBH98 

Northern hemisphere climate index: Update and implications, Energy and Environment, 

16, 69-100. 

 

McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick (2005b) Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious 
significance,” Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750 

 


Miller, D.W. (2007) The Government Grant System Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? J. of 
Information Ethics, 16, 59-69 

 

National Academy of Sciences (1992) Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming:Mitigation, 
Adaptation, and the Science Base, National Academy Press, 944 pp. 

 

North, G.R., chair (2006) NRC, 2006: Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for 
the Last 2,000 Years, National Research Council, National Academies Press 

 

Oppenheimer, M. and R.Boyle (1990) Dead Heat, The Race Against the Greenhouse Effect, 
Basic Books, 288 pp. 

 

Oreskes, N.(2004) The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306, 1686. 

 

Pearce, F. (2008) Poor forecasting undermines climate debate. New Scientist, 01 May 2008, 8-9 

 

Pearson, P.N., P.W. Ditchfeld, J. Singano, K.G. Harcourt-Brown, C.J. Nicholas, R.K. Olsson, 

N.J. Shackleton & M.A. Hall (2000) Warm tropical sea surface temperatures in the Late 
Cretaceous and Eocene epochs Nature 413 481-487 

 

Pielke Sr., R.A., T.N. Chase, J.R. Christy and B. Herman (2008) Assessment of temperature 
trends in the troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature (submitted) 

 

Pulver, Simone (2004). Power in the Public Sphere: The battles between Oil Companies and 
Environmental Groups in the UN Climate Change Negotiations, 1991-2003. Doctoral 
dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley 

 

Roe, G. (2006) In defense of Milankovitch. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 33, L24703, 
doi:10.1029/2006GL027817 

 

Sackmann, J. and A.I. Boothroyd (2003) Our sun. V. A bright young sun consistent with 
helioseismology and warm temperatures on ancient earth and mars. The Astrophysical Journal, 
583:1024-1039 

 

Sagan, C. and G. Mullen. (1972) Earth and Mars: evolution of atmospheres and surface 
temperatures. Science, 177, 52-56. 

 

Schrag, D.P. (1999) Effects of diagenesis on isotopic record of late Paleogene equatorial sea 
surface temperatures. Chem. Geol., 161, 215-224 

 

Schulte, K.-M. (2008) Scientific consensus on climate? Energy and Environment, 19 281-286 

 

Shackleton, N., and A. Boersma, (1981) The climate of the Eocene ocean, J. Geol. Soc., London, 


138, 153-157. 

 

Singer, S.F. (2003) The Revelle-Gore Story Attempted Political Suppression of Science in 
Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking edited by Michael Gough, Hoover Institution 
313 pp (pp 283-297). 

 

Singer, S.F., C. Starr, and R. Revelle (1991), “What To Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look 
Before You Leap,” Cosmos 1 28–33. 

 

Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy (2007) 
Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model 
Science, 317, 796-799 

 

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, C. Idso, S. Idso, and D. Legates (2003) Reconstructing climatic and 
environmental changes of the past 1000 years: a reappraisal. Energy and Environment, 14, 233-
296 

 

Thompson, D.W.J., J. J. Kennedy, J. M. Wallace and P.D. Jones (2008) A large discontinuity in 
the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature Nature 453 646-649 

 

Vinnikov, K.Y. N.C. Grody, A. Robock, RJ. Stouffer, P.D. Jones, and M.D. Goldberg (2006) 
Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere. J. Geophys. Res.,111, D03106, 
doi:10.1029/2005JD006392 

 

Weart, S. (2003) The Discovery of Global Warming, Harvard University Press, 228 pp. 

 

Wegman, E.J. et al., (2006): Ad Hoc Committee report on the “Hockey Stick” global climate 
reconstruction, commissioned by the US Congress House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf 

 

Zedillo, E., editor (2007) Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. Brookings Institution Press, 
237 pp.