Technical ReportPDF Available

IPCC next climate assessment report (AR6, due 2022) − 784 authors but again no geologists

  • Geoclastica Ltd


GEOCLASTICA LTD TECHNICAL NOTE 2019-10. One single slide, a 5-minute read. One arguable exception to my claim of no geologists in IPCC's writing team for its upcoming report is a widely respected lecturer at Northern Arizona University, in its School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability (a name that hints at a possible predisposition to blame global warming on man's CO2 emissions). After careful google research, I conclude that this person is only loosely definable as a geologist, of a highly specialised kind. Googling his name along with the word 'geologist' in May 2019 yielded no returns in which that string of words is used. The individual is classified on one website as a paleolimnologist and glacial geomorphologist; elsewhere he describes himself as a "professor of climatology and glacial geology". The professor specialises in only the last few thousand years of Earth's 4.5-billion-year history. He is co-author of a special volume on the climate of just the last 2,000 years, published March 2019.
My Technical Note 2018-2 revealed no geologists or archaeologists among the
838 (sic) authors of IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5, 2013-14), the very specialists most aware of (1) rapid climate- and sea-level
(SL) changes throughout Earth’s 4.5 billion years, caused by orbital and solar variations, not CO2, and (2) Holocene (last 11,000yrs)
human mass-migrations and cultural collapse caused by droughts, again due to solar changes, not CO2
IPCC’s next report, AR6, supposedly “will update our knowledge on climate change, its impacts and risks, and possible response
options, and play an important role in implementing the Paris Agreement” said IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee. The selected “author
teams, drawn from the hundreds of excellent nominations the IPCC was fortunate to receive, provide us with the necessary
expertise across a range of disciplines to conduct the assessment” ... but in truth ...
... the author statistics (below) show that the “necessary expertise” is lacking, as geologists and archaeologists are again excluded,
with the arguable exception of one specialist in glacial geomorphology and Holocene (i.e. very recent) lake studies. Thus the IPCC’s
collective authorship is incompetent for its stated mission of reviewing the scientific literature to assess past climate- and SL changes.
By omitting geologists and archaeologists, IPCC focuses on just the last 150 years, ‘since records began’, i.e. since the ~1850 start of
accurate global SL and thermometer measurements. Thus IPCC has “expertise” in a mere 30-millionth (sic) of Earth’s 4.5-billion-year
history. IPCC therefore neglects, for example, copious geological evidence that SL (barometer of global temperature, via ocean-water
expansion & polar ice melt) undergoes a rapid (< 300yrs) and large (1-5 metres) oscillation every 300-2,000 years (superimposed on
larger [10s metres] longer-term oscillations caused by orbital variations), driven not by CO2 but by solar ‘Grand Maxima’, warming
Earth by the Svensmark effect, causing Antarctic ice-rim collapse events ...
IPCC’s AR6 next major report, author statistics (for names see Bullet 1 at :
Working Group I, ‘The Physical Science Basis’, 232 authors, including ‘climate scientists’ (mostly climate modellers, Garbage in
garbage out, “What answer would you like”? ), meteorologists, oceanographers, glaciologists, geographers but no geologists (or 1?).
Working Group II, ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’, 323 authors, no geologists.
Working Group III, ‘Mitigation of Climate Change’, 229 authors, no geologists.
IPCC’s Lee again, in true UN egalitarian style: “Of the selected experts, 44% come from developing countries ..., 53% are new to the
IPCC process and 33% are women.” How lovely: to debate the most important, controversial and expensive issue in human history
the IPCC invited no geologists (or 1?), the most relevant scientists of all; but at least we have politically correct quotas of sexes (no
mention of orientation yet), third-world people and youngsters, i.e. excellence is of secondary importance. Worse: the young 53%
will have been bombarded with the ‘CO2 = pollutant’ belief throughout school and university, so they are biased from the outset.
Be appalled that this self-interested underskilled political organization, judging the 1°C of warming since 1900 to be man-made
despite profuse evidence of CO2’s innocence ... ... has unleashed needless
multi-trillion-dollar expenditure that will cripple the global economy and keep billions of people in poverty.
United Nations ‘Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change’ (IPCC)
next report, due 2022 Again No Geologists or Archaeologists?
Dr Roger Higgs, Geoclastica Ltd
Technical Note 2019-10
24-3-2019, updated 6th July 2020
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.