How Saudi oil scientists ended up working on the world’s most important climate reports

The Guardian’s latest investigation has uncovered that several authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports maintain close ties to fossil‑fuel companies, raising questions about the credibility of the body’s climate science. The probe, which drew on public disclosures and interviews, highlighted that a number of IPCC contributors have received funding, consulting fees, or advisory roles from major oil and gas firms, including Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil and Shell. The findings also reveal that the IPCC’s current conflict‑of‑interest policy, designed to prevent undue influence on its assessments, has been criticized by climate experts as “not fit for purpose,” arguing that it fails to adequately address the breadth of financial and professional relationships that could bias scientific conclusions.

The investigation began with the experience of Prof. Julia Steinberger, a new IPCC author from the University of Lausanne, who described her first day on the panel as “a strange introduction” when she met Mustafa Babiker, a consultant for Saudi Aramco, over breakfast. Steinberger’s anecdote illustrates the broader pattern of IPCC scientists engaging with industry stakeholders. Independent analysts and former IPCC members have pointed out that the panel’s reliance on experts with industry ties may compromise the impartiality of its climate assessments, especially given the high stakes for global policy and public trust. The Guardian report also noted that several of the identified authors have contributed to industry‑backed research and have served on advisory boards for fossil‑fuel companies, further complicating the perception of objective science.

In response to the findings, the IPCC has stated it will review its conflict‑of‑interest guidelines, but critics argue that substantive reforms are needed to ensure that the panel’s work remains free from corporate influence. The investigation underscores the urgent need for transparent and robust safeguards in climate science institutions, particularly those that inform international policy decisions. As the world continues to grapple with the urgency of climate action, the credibility of the IPCC’s reports remains a pivotal factor in shaping global responses to the crisis.