People Starting To Ask About Motive For Massive IPCC Deception

Written by Dr Tim Ball, Climatologist

Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – whyagenda 21

What is the motive behind corrupting science to such an extent? Some skeptics seem to believe it is just poor quality scientists, who don’t understand physics, but that doesn’t explain the amount, and obviously deliberate nature, of what has been presented to the public. What motive would you give, when asked?

The first step in understanding, is knowledge about how easily large-scale deceptions are achieved. Here is an explanation from one of the best proponents in history.

“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.” ————————–

Do these remarks explain the comments of Jonathan Gruber about legislation for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare? Do the remarks fit the machinations of the founders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the activities of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) disclosed in their 6000 leaked emails? It is instructive to know that Professor Gruber’s health care models are inaccessible, protected as proprietary.

The author of the quote was a leader whose lies and deceptions caused global disaster, including the deaths of millions of people. In a complex deception, the IPCC established a false result, the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming, then used it as the basis for a false premise that justifies the false result. It is a classic circular argument, but essential to perpetuate the phony results, which are the basis of all official climate change, energy, and environmental policies.

They successfully fooled the majority and even though many are starting to ask questions about contradictions, the central argument that CO2 is a demon gas destroying the planet through climate change, remains. There are three phases in countering what most people understand and convincing them of what was done. First, you have to explain the scientific method and the hypothesis they tried to prove, instead of the proper method of disproving it. Then you must identify the fundamental scientific flaws, in a way people understand. Third, you must anticipate the next question, because, as people grasp what is wrong and what was done, by understanding the first two stages, they inevitably ask the basic question skeptics have not answered effectively. Who did it and what was the motive? You have to overcome the technique so succinctly portrayed below in the cartoon (Figure 1).


The response must counteract all the issues detailed in Adolf Hitler’s cynical comments, but also the extremely commendable motive of saving the planet, used by the IPCC and alarmists.

There are several roadblocks, beyond those Hitler identified. Some are inherent to individuals and others to society. People want to believe the best in people, especially if they have certain positions in society. Most can’t imagine scientists would do anything other than honest science. Most assume scientists avoid politics as much as possible because science is theoretically apolitical. One argument that is increasingly effective against this concern is funding. Follow the money is so basic, human greed, that even scientists are included.

Most find it hard to believe that a few people could fool the world. This is why the consensus argument was used from the start. Initially, it referred to the then approximately 6000 or so involved directly or indirectly in the IPCC. Later it was converted to the 97 percent figure concocted by Oreske, and later Cook. Most people don’t know consensus has no relevance to science. The consensus argument also marginalized the few scientists and others who dared to speak out.

There were also deliberate efforts to marginalize this small group with terminology. Skeptics has a different meaning for science and the public. For the former they are healthy and necessary, for the latter an irritating non-conformist. When the facts contradicted the hypothesis, namely that temperature stopped rising while CO2 continued to increase, a more egregious name was necessary. In the latter half of the 20thcentury, a denier was automatically associated with the holocaust.

Another form of marginalizing, applied to minority groups, is to give them a unique label. In climate, as in many other areas where people keep asking questions for which they receive inadequate answers, they are called conspiracy theorists. It is why I prefer the term cabal, a secretive political clique or faction, named after the initials of Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley and Lauderdale, ministers to Charles II. Maurice Strong referred to the cabal when he speculated in 1990,

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

The motive emerged from the cabal within the Club of Rome around the themes identified by their founder, scientist Alexander King, in the publication The First Global Revolution. They took the Malthusian argument that the population was outgrowing food resources and said it was outgrowing all resources. The problem overall was bad, but was exacerbated and accelerated by industrialized nations. They were later identified as the nations in Annex 1 of the Kyoto Accord. The objective to achieve the motive was to reduce industrialization by identifying CO2 as causing global warming. It had to be a human caused variable that transcended national boundaries and therefore could only be resolved by a world government, (the conspiracy theory). Two parallel paths required political control, supported by scientific “proof” that CO2 was the demon.

All this was achieved with the political and organizational skills of Maurice Strong. Neil Hrab explains how Strong achieved the goal.

How has Strong promoted concepts like sustainable development to consume the world’s attention? Mainly by using his prodigious skills as a networker. Over a lifetime of mixing private sector career success with stints in government and international groups, Strong has honed his networking abilities to perfection. He can bring presidents, prime ministers and potentates from the world’s four corners to big environmental conferences such as the 1992 Rio Summit, an environmental spectacle organized by Strong and attended by more than 100 heads of state.

Here is a simple flow chart of what happened at Rio:

Ball flow diagram

The political structure of Agenda 21 included the environmental catch-all, the precautionary principle, as Principle 15.

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

What reads like a deep concern for doing good, is actually a essentially a carte blanche to label anything as requiring government intervention. The excuse for action is the unassailable “protect the environment”. Who decides which State is capable? Who decides what is “serious” or “irreversible”? Who decides what “lack of full scientific certainty” means?

Maurice Strong set out the problem, as he saw it, in his keynote speech in Rio in 1992.

“Central to the issues we are going to have to deal with are: patterns of production and consumption in the industrial world that are undermining the Earth’s life-support systems; the explosive increase in population, largely in the developing world, that is adding a quarter of a million people daily; deepening disparities between rich and poor that leave 75 per cent of humanity struggling to live; and an economic system that takes no account of ecological costs or damage – one which views unfettered growth as progress. We have been the most successful species ever; we are now a species out of control. Our very success is leading us to a dangerous future.”

The motive was to protect the world from the people, particularly people in the industrial world. Measure of their damage was the amount of CO2 their industry produced. This was required as scientific proof that human CO2 was the cause.

From its inception, the IPCC focused on human production of CO2. It began with the definition of climate change, provided by the UNFCCC, as only those changes caused by humans. This effctively sidelined natural causes. The computer models produced the pre-programmed results and everything was amplified, and exaggerated through the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The deception was very effective because of the cynical weaknesses Hitler identifies, the natural assumption that nobody could deceive, on such an important issue, and on such a scale, but also because most didn’t know what was being done.

People who knew, didn’t think to question what was going on for a variety of reasons. This situation makes the statement by German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls even more important.

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

Puls commented on the scientific implications of the deception when he said,

“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”

Now, as more and more people learn what Puls identifies, they will start to ask, who did it and what was the motive. When you understand what Adolf Hitler is saying in the quote from “Mein Kampf” above, you realize how easy it was to create the political formula of Agenda 21 and the scientific formula of the IPCC. Those responsible for the formation, structure, research, and final Reports, easily convinced the world they were a scientific organization making valid scientific statements. They also quckly and easily marginalized skeptics, as the leaked CRU emails exposed.

Do you have another or better explanation of a motive?


Comments (2)

  • Avatar



    Oh oh!!!! It seems that Dr Tim Ball’s article has upset one Professor Richard Betts and one Dr Tamsin Edwards:

    I cannot understand why Betts and Edwards would be upset by what Dr Ball stated… because Dr Ball was spot on!

  • Avatar

    Greg House


    [quote]Written by Dr Tim Ball, Climatologist on 26 Nov 2014: “Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked – why?”[/quote]

    Wrong question. The IPCC took the bad climate science and used it for political purposes.

Comments are closed