Chapter 10 – The Politics of Anthropogenic Climate Change

By Michael Belsick

Greta Thumberg, other man-made climate change activists, Democratic politicians, and all Liberal Media “talking heads” tell us that man-made climate change is real and the effects will be irreversible in 12 years if we do not act (spend money) right now.  Where do they get this information since all of them know little or nothing about science?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).  The IPCC “stimulates” research in climate science with grant money.  The IPCC also monitors all work on climate research.  Ultimately, they summarize all the relevant research that they approve and capture that in reports containing a “Summary for Policymakers”.

To answer the above question, every Liberal/Progressive on Earth gets the information about man-made climate change killing the Earth from the bureaucrats in the IPCC.  What could possibly go wrong with that?

So, where do the IPCC bureaucrats get their information?

The IPCC provides grant money to climate scientists that will generate climate data and projections that the IPCC wants.  The IPCC monitors all research in this field but selectively picks and choses the desirable research, thus they bias the results.  The approved research is then selectively summarized into a final report that is then published for all the bureaucrats providing funding to the IPCC.   These same reports are then made available to the Media.

If you graduated with a PhD in climate science, where do you get a job to support yourself?  One could go work for a major corporation and do what they want.  You could teach and do your own scientific research as long as the college was OK with that.  You could solicit grant money to do the research that you wanted.  What if however, most of the grant money available had “strings attached”?

So, let me summarize how this works:

  1. The IPCC provides grant money to scientists that are willing to provide data that the IPCC wants.
  2. The IPCC sorts through all the climate research papers presented and choses the ones to use.
  3. Any research paper that disagrees with IPCC dogma is disputed, condemned, and ridiculed.
  4. The IPCC then “summarizes” all the selected approved research findings, which may or may not represent the original author’s opinions/conclusions.
  5. Finally, the IPCC distributes their summary reports to the Media, climate activists, and politicians. Then they host a conference where everyone uses private jets to fly into some fancy location to promote their findings.

Just as an example to item 4 above, one scientific reviewer who had their comments included in an IPCC Summary for Policy Makers was dismayed to see that their critical comment was deleted from the IPCC report which dramatically changed their conclusion.  That deleted comment was:

“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

Let’s discuss the possible corruption of the summary reports starting with the originating data.

Remember Dr. Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph of Earth temperature that so greatly alarmed the world due to the significant temperature spike starting since the 1990s?


How does Dr. Mann’s graph (Figure 3 and repeated above) compare to a graph of temperatures as determined by historical (documented) data shown in Figure 35?

Figure 35. The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age

In Figure 35, there are written records indicating that Vikings were able to colonize Newfoundland and Greenland and grow crops including grapes.  Currently, vineyards cannot grow in these locations due to the cold.  There is identical written evidence for northern England as well.  For this to have happened, it would have had to be warmer in the year 1200 than in 2020.  But that information does not match the “Hockey Stick” temperature chart.  Somebody is not telling the truth.  Personally, I believe the archeologist and historians.

Here are three more temperature charts (Figure 36 through Figure 38) going back even farther from different authors.  None of these four charts matches Dr. Mann’s chart, which is solely used by the man-made climate change believers.  If you wanted to convince the world that the Earth is getting hotter due to recent increases in man-made CO2 concentrations, which chart would you show?

  Figure 36. 2000 Years of Global Temperatures

Figure 37. 11,000 Years of Global Temperatures

Figure 38. Major Climate Changes over Last 15,000 Years

Climate Research Unit Fraud

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (in Norwich, England) became the center hub of all climate research.  Essentially, the CRU and the IPCC are one in the same.  In November of 2009, someone “hacked” into the CRU computers and released a thousand emails between researchers, the CRU administration and the IPCC.  This controversy became known as “Climategate” for the obvious implication of what happened to President Nixon.  Books have been written as to what the general public learned from these first leaked emails and the 220,000 later emails released on March 13, 2013.  The following is just a summary of the climate change corruption that had occurred:

  • The CRU ignored obvious evidence that did not meet their desired results. Ex., the CRU selectively used temperature measuring stations that provided the desired higher temperature readings.
    • Atmospheric measuring stations are positioned around the globe, but most are in North America and Europe.
    • Ideally, measuring stations are positioned so as to avoid biased data.
      • Locations in nature provide more honest data than ones located in urban environments, since asphalt and concrete distort the true air temperature reading.
      • Monitors attached to buoys get better ocean temperatures than monitors dragged behind a ship.
    • The CRU colluded, slandered opponents, and corrupted results in a predetermined fashion.
    • The CRU blocked dissent and conspired to secure friendly reviewers to “rubber stamp” climate papers in line with their political motivations.
    • All the investigations into the CRU were covered up and mostly ignored by the Media.
    • Many of those that participated in this corruption were unaware of the scientific deception that was taking place. Some that willingly participated were lured by the funding, employment or prestige.
    • The biggest scandal revealed the length to which people refused outside requests for data, methodology and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests presumably so no could challenge them.
    • The cost of this corruption of climate change by the IPCC is likely to have been in the trillions of dollars.
    • This level of corruption even extended into Wikipedia when William Connolley became the climate change editor for Wikipedia. Connolley created/rewrote 5424 different articles to be more pro man-made climate change.  He deleted 500 articles from Wikipedia that he did not like.  He barred 2000 authors from being able to submit an article to Wikipedia.  He even briefly removed all references to the Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia to not let it dispute research that ignored this warm period.  Even CBS news wrote about the corruption by Connolley in July of 2008.
    • To Connolley and many others that participated in this science corruption, the “end justifies the means”.

Allow me to provide some very interesting quotes from the IPCC that may help to resolve this discrepancy.

Maurice Strong, founding executive director of the United Nations Environmental Program said:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse?  Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC Chair from 2008 to 2015, said in 2010:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore…. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment from 1977 to 1999 said:

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

H.L. Mencken (Sept 1880 to Jan 1956), American journalist and satirist said:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”


The supposedly scientific studies indicating that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming comes from the IPCC and is biased.  The IPCC provides grant money to those willing to produce the desired data.  The IPCC handpicked scientific papers and data favorable to their position. Only this selected information is included in a summary report that is finally handed out to politicians, bureaucrats and the Media.  Climate scientists that disagree with the IPCC are attacked, ridiculed, and the IPCC works to suppress any results that do not support man-made climate change.  A “whistleblower” showed us that there has been extensive corruption in climate science to promote any research that supports man-made climate change and to suppress research indicating the opposite fact.  Leaked moments of honesty by those involved in this corruption indicate that everything that they do has nothing to do with climate change environmentalism.  It is all about wealth redistribution.