Top Swiss Avalanche Expert Werner Munter Calls IPCC Report “A Scientific Farce”…”Piss Take”!

He looks more like a guru, even a prophet. In Switzerland 73 year old Swiss Alps mountain guide Werner Munter is known as the “avalanche pope”. No one knows more about avalanches in the Alps and their risks than he does.


Werner Munter: Image credit:

Having authored some 20 books, he is credited for having revolutionized the science of avalanches.

The online Swiss here featured the expert and his position on the IPCC’s latest report late last year. writes that although Munter is not a climate expert, he has read up on the subject extensively, and quotes Munter:

It’s unbelievable arrogance to believe that we would be able to sustainably influence the climate.”

He also tells that he has found no evidence showing how CO2 could warm the climate. Swissinfo writes:

He views the current claims of most climate scientists as well as the experts of the UN (IPCC), who say mankind’s activities are causing climate change, as ‘piss take’.”

“Piss take” definition: here. Why is Munter skeptical? He cites hundreds of scientific papers opposing the current opinion of the IPCC and that there isn’t any consensus at all. reports Munter does not dispute climate is changing, but believes man is not responsible for it.

Munter to

During the Holocene – a period on earth going back about 10,000 years – there were five phases when it was just as warm as it is today, or even warmer.”

Munter also tells “CO2 is not a pollutant” and that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 stemming from man is “negligible”. He also doesn’t believe that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, citing a paper by physicist Robert Wood.

On why the earth is warming, Munter says it all goes back to the sun. And by the sun he not only means solar irradiance but also the sun’s magnetic field, thus lending support to Svensmark’s theory.

Munter’s skepticism worryies media like, and established climate scientists in Europe – for example Mike Schäfer, a risk communication professor at the University of Zurich. He tells that Munter is not alone as a skeptic because “in the USA 20 to 30 percent of the population are climate skeptics” who do not believe man plays any real role on climate or the projected consequences.

Media do not share skeptic positions

Interestingly writes that the number of skeptics in Germany and Switzerland is far smaller than in the USA. Schäfer attributes that to the fact that “practically no media share the positions of the climate skeptics.”

On skepticism in Switzerland, quotes Marko Kovic, president of an association for critical thinking: “Skeptiker Schweiz”, who claims skepticism in Switzerland is limited to only a few individuals:

These are people who as a rule who have read American website and blogs.”

Next highlights how in Europe there is a strong popular consensus that man is responsible for climate change, and that this is not so in English speaking countries like the USA, Great Britain and Australia because the “vast majority of these persons have some kind of relation with the business lobbies of oil, coal or the automobile industry, who deny the impact of emissions on climate“.

Whew! The Swiss really are backwards and shallow in some ways. Little wonder Swiss women were not allowed to vote until 1971. It’s kind of like a “just shut up and get back to your place!” sort of culture.

Munter on the other hand also thinks there is corruption, telling that climate science has been corrupted by money and politics. That does not go down very well. To refute Munter’s claim, promptly contacted Urs Neu, Director of ProClim (a state-supported institute). Neu denies the accusation and cites an “evaluation of 12,000 scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011, which found that 97 percent of the authors suspect that human activity is the cause of climate change.”

Right. And before 1970, a survey by Swiss men showed 97% of half of Swiss men believed that women were too dumb to vote. Again it’s the caveman wooden club of authority thing. sums up by quoting state-funded warmist University of Genf professor Martin Beniston on the need for skeptics like Munter:

Skeptics allow scientists to tweek their arguments and to drive additional studies with which they can respond to their critics. If there had not been any opposition, then it would not have been possible to have made the great progress in climate science that we have seen.”

Right again. Swiss men also need a few independent-minded women to talk back from time to time – because this is what has allowed them to make great progress in being better-knowing husbands.

Hats off to Werner Munter for taking on such a conceited bunch.


17 responses to “Top Swiss Avalanche Expert Werner Munter Calls IPCC Report “A Scientific Farce”…”Piss Take”!”

  1. Newsel

    “Neu denies the accusation, and cites an “evaluation of 12,000 scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011, which found that 97 percent of the authors suspect that human activity is the cause of climate change.”

    Neu needs to educate himself.

    “Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth Say Friends of Science. Friends of Science have issued a new report “97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths and Social Proofs” revealing that only 1-3% of scientists in 3 of 4 “consensus” surveys explicitly agree with the IPCC extreme declaration on global warming. Scientific evidence at the joint NOAA/NASA press conference Jan. 21, 2014 shows no global warming in 16+ years despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2); as climate models continue to fail, the Dutch government calls for the IPCC reform to include natural factors, not limited to human-induced climate change.”

    – See more at:

  2. John F. Hultquist

    Wow. Hats off, indeed.

  3. Edward.

    There is just about a free press and some independent thinking going on in the US of A.

    Over here in the EU and indeed satraps like Switzerland – the media is tightly controlled and kids get the full on propaganda lies [global warming is killing the polar bears], this miasma of lies is repeated ad nauseum: it’s not hard to explain the relative ‘alarmist consensus’.

    “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”

    Orwell, could see it all coming even in the 1940’s.

    1. DirkH

      “There is just about a free press and some independent thinking going on in the US of A.”

      Free press in the USA? What?

      1. Mike Heath

        In some way it is true, it is only that there are a million channels of garbage and self appointed dictators of “truth” that somewhere in the muddle there must be some people who are real but it is hard to find them.

        1. DirkH

          USA: Five media companies.
          Dem vs. Rep: Not the issue. A distraction. (Brzezinski & Neocons have united) (Obama’s state department is full of resurrected Neocons like Nudelman/Nuland)

          Exactly like the pseudo duality of SPD vs CDU in Germany (well as they’re in a coalition it’s not even a pretense of opposites anymore).

  4. Hoi Polloi

    Esch mega-hurä geil, gall, weisch?

    1. Felix Schweizer

      I think, he was just burping – in Swiss-German dialect. Hoi polloi everywhere don’t care, and they cannot understand the debate, as their teachers kept them dumb.
      The media are alarmistic; that ensures access to the people in power and mental energy-saving. Most commenters are skeptic. The government is afraid of possible referendums; they have lost all those concerning “renewable” energy.
      Munter is a reasonable man. If you followed his directions and advice in mountain-climbing, you couldn’t do much wrong.

      1. TINSTAAFL

        The very fact that I’m here shows I’m sceptic although being hoi polloi. Most of the very technical discussions go over my head, but I know it’s a rat when I see one.

      2. DirkH

        Hoi Polloi is a skeptic. He has commented here before. For the warmist scientists we are the Hoi Polloi. Get it?

  5. Ric Werme

    Bummer, I was hoping they’d include notrickszone in “These are people who as a rule who have read American website and blogs” and dismiss you as a damn Yankee. 🙂

  6. Mindert Eiting


    ‘The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
    Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result’.

  7. pat

    please – is it possible to do a better translation of this bill gates interview with a german newspaper, if the original can be located:

    28 Jan – Bill Gates Calls for ‘Global Government’
    Billionaire Bill Gates called for “a kind of global government” this week, arguing that the creation of such a system would be needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
    Speaking with Germany’s “Süddeutsche Zeitung” newspaper Tuesday, Gates decried the fact that a proper United Nations system has failed to materialize as planned.
    “You can make fun of it, but in truth it was sad how the conference in Copenhagen is run, how individual who behave like the UN system failed,” Gates said according to an English translation in the Huffington Post…LINK

  8. dennisambler

    “He also doesn’t believe that CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, citing a paper by physicist Robert Wood.

    You can read more background on the Physics here:
    “The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”

    Effectively, Arrhenious was Erroneous. He also mentions Robert Wood.

    Re: Bill Gates, we already have Global Government via the various UN bodies which supercede even the EU on many things, although they prefer the softer term, governance. AGW is one of the control mechanisms, with the target of global taxation of energy, via a global “carbon tax”, to be administered by the UN.

    1. DirkH

      Great link! Actually just like Miskolczi’s theory, but explained in simple terms.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy