Update: The UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers report is out. Follow updates here.
Climate Depot’s Special Report Revealing the IPCC as Political, Not Scientific
‘This is a pure political process’: Why the UN IPCC Meeting Isn’t Being Televised: ‘Scientific truth isn’t negotiated in the dead of night behind closed doors’ — ‘At the [UN IPCC] meeting, one sentence after another has been projected onto large screens. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from dozens of UN nations have haggled, horse traded, and negotiated. Eventually, phrasing that everyone can live with has been agreed upon. Then they’ve moved on to the next sentence. The meeting is closed to the public. It is closed to the media. No minutes are kept. But let us imagine that a television camera had been smuggled inside. What would we see?’ In 2007 we saw: ‘An agonizing, frustrating process, as every sentence had to be wordsmithed on a screen in front of representatives of more than 100 governments’ (Report from Donna Laframboise of NOconsensus.org)
UK Daily Mail reporter David Rose UN IPCC: ‘What’s happening here in Stockholm is final terminological shift. Global warming is dead. Long live climate change. New ocean acid emphasis!’ — ‘Cunning work, IPCC. Surface temp pause is inexplicable, but it’s wrong metric, so who cares? And PS, one unknown day it will get really hot.’
New study refutes UN IPCC — finds threat of man-made global warming greatly exaggerated: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change finds the threat of man-made global warming to be not only greatly exaggerated but so small as to be ‘embedded within the background variability of the natural climate system’ and not dangerous
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report — Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
UN IPCC Chief Pachauri says new report will ‘reassure’ ‘belief’ in AGW: ‘I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase)’ — ‘There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible’ — ‘I hope that [the IPCC report] will reassure everyone that human influence is having a major impact on the Earth’s climate’
Andrew Montford: Climatology’s Great Dilemma — ‘The UN IPCC’s dilemma is this. How can it expect the public to believe that recent warming is mostly manmade when the models on which it has based this claim have been shown to be fatally flawed?’
Let’s talk percentages! Reuters explains UN IPCC’s 95% confidence of human causation of global warming: ‘It’s based on a discussion among the authors’ — UN Scientists talk their way to 95%! ‘Scientists use a mixture of data and “expert judgment” to decide how likely it is that climate change is man-made and rule out other factors, such as changes in the sun’s output. The IPCC draft halves the likelihood that natural factors are to blame to 5 per cent from 10, the flip side of raising the probability that climate change is man-made to 95 per cent. “It’s based on a discussion among the authors…There must be multiple lines of evidence,” said Eystein Jansen, of the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway and one of the authors of the Stockholm draft.’
Monckton rips AP’s Seth Borenstein for touting UN IPCC’s meaningless 95% confidence in man-made global warming: Monckton: It is ‘no more scientific a process than a show of hands’ — Monckton to Borenstein: ‘The IPCC’s pretence that it is 95% confident that most of the warming since 1950 was manmade is transparently rent-seeking guesswork, to which no intelligent journalist should lend the slightest credence…The IPCC’s attempt to assign a quantified statistical confidence interval to a non-statistical process was inappropriate and, mathematically speaking, contemptible’ — The sheer dumbness of the IPCC’s approach should at least be questioned by journalists, not merely paraded as though it were some sort of Gospel truth…Surely it would be better to start asking real questions than merely to parrot uncritically the innumerate absurdities of a politicized clique of profiteers of doom in the scientific establishment. Time to raise your game.’ AP’s Borenstein wrote glowingly about the UN IPCC’s 95% confidence in man-made global warming, but failed to tell his readers that the number was made up out of thin air. ‘‘It’s based on a discussion among the authors’ See: Let’s talk percentages! Reuters explains UN IPCC’s 95% confidence of human causation of global warming: ‘It’s based on a discussion among the authors’
Analysis: ‘Numerous UN IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change’: ‘Each paragraph of a document written by scientists is being projected onto large screens. Delegations from scores of nations participate in the editing: Words will be substituted, emphasis will be added, entire sentences may well be inserted or deleted.’
Climatologist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels and Chip Knappenberger: ‘New IPCC Report Will Be Internally Inconsistent and Misleading’ — UN IPCC ‘seems more intent on maintaining the crumbling ‘consensus’ on anthropogenic global warming than on following climate science to its logical conclusion—a conclusion that increasingly suggests that human greenhouse gas emissions are less important in driving climate change than commonly held’
Reuters: Skeptics pummel Al Gore & IPCC chief Pachauri into ‘faded’ stars: The ‘glamor’ has gone’ – ‘We need new voices’ — ‘Gore has been worn down by criticisms, especially by U.S. Republicans who say his climate campaigns are alarmist and question the science behind them’ — Reuters: ‘Compared to the heady days in 2007 when U.S. climate campaigner Al Gore and the U.N.’s panel of climate scientists shared the Nobel Peace Prize, the risks of global warming may be greater but the stars preaching the message have faded…’We need new voices,’ said Jennifer Morgan, of the World Resources Institute think tank in DC. — Much of the ‘glamor’ has gone since Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian chair of the IPCC, and Gore proudly showed off the Nobel gold medals in 2007, a time when firm global action on reducing emissions of greenhouse gasses seemed feasible. Gore’s later ventures have been less high profile. He sold his struggling cable channel, Current TV, to Al Jazeera in January.’
Bloomberg News credits Climate Depot’s Morano with ‘hindering’ UN climate treaty! ‘Skeptics have succeeded in ‘confusing the public’ — ‘Global Warming Slowdown Hinders Climate Treaty Effort’ — Global warming flatline said to ‘muddy the picture about how much carbon dioxide output is affecting the climate, giving ammunition to those who doubt the issue needs urgent action. Skeptics have succeeded in ‘confusing the public,’ said Michael Jacobs, who advised the U.K. government on climate policy until 2010. ‘It’s been a very organized campaign by climate skeptics…’ ‘The stories are part of a trend toward skepticism about climate change that gained ground since the IPCC’s 2007 report. Skeptics including Marc Morano, former spokesman for Republican Senator James Inhofe, pounced on errors by the IPCC in 2007 that exaggerated the rate glaciers in the Himalayas are melting and overstated flood risks in the Netherlands.’
New York Times: Skeptical blogs force UN IPCC to ‘pull punches’!? ‘A Climate Alarm, Too Muted for Some’ — NYT’s Justin Gillis: excerpt: ‘Their fear is that the intergovernmental panel might be pulling punches…The group [IPCC] has been subjected to attack in recent years by climate skeptics. The intimidation tactics have included abusive language on blogs, comparisons to the Unabomber, e-mail hacking and even occasional death threats. Who could blame the panel if it wound up erring on the side of scientific conservatism?’
Global warming believers are feeling the heat — ‘The latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming.’
Flashback: Say What?! UN IPCC Chief Pachauri calls for ‘sane and rational voices’ in media coverage Flashback: Pachauri wishes skeptics would ‘apply asbestos to their faces every day’ — ‘Sane and rational’?! Flashack 2010: Pachauri’s death wish for skeptics! He also smeared skeptics as akin to ‘flat-earthers’ and the promoters of ‘voodoo’ science
Flashback Jan. 2010: UN IPCC’s Pachauri a Climate Creep?! The Dr. of Climate Deceit Transforms to Dr. of Love? — ‘Smutty’ novel written by the UN climate chief Pachauri: Excerpt: ‘She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt…He was overcome by a lust…and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts’
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on the CO2 ‘control knob’ fallacy: ‘This issue of CO2 as a climate control knob has always bugged me’ — Curry: ‘But on what time scales does it make sense to think of CO2 as a control knob? That is a very relevant question in context of CO2 mitigation policies that doesn’t seem to get asked…Until we get get past the IPCC’s paradigm paralysis that climate change on multidecadal time scales is completely externally forced, there won’t be much progress on really understanding climate change.
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry to UN IPCC: Curry to IPCC: ‘Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know’ — Curry to IPCC: ‘Then please do the hard work of understanding regional vulnerability to climate variability and change before you tell us what constitutes ’dangerous’ climate change. And let us know if you come up with any solutions to this ‘problem’ that aren’t worse than the potential problem itself.’
Steve McIntyre demolishes the credibility of the IPCC as a scientific organization, demonstrating why the IPCC will be unable to explain the ‘pause’ due to their willful obstruction of the science contrary to their political narrative — ‘No credence should be given to IPCC’s last-minute attribution of the discrepancy to “natural variability”. IPCC’s ad hoc analysis purporting to support this claim does not stand up to the light of day’
Media claim: IPCC May have to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2100 — The Brisbane Times reports: ‘Under the future emissions scenarios considered by the IPCC, only the most stringent would keep the world within the remaining CO2 allowance for 2 degrees. It would mean an average global emission cut of 50 per cent by mid-century on 1990 levels, and possibly require removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2100.’
Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels & Chip Knappenberger: ‘The IPCC Is Pretty Much Dead Wrong — ‘It’s becoming obvious that not only is the report going to obsolete on the day that it is released, but that it will be dead wrong as well’
Article in Nature offers a ‘mix of’ 3 natural explanations for the halt in global warming: 1) Solar activity 2) Stratospheric water vapour & 3) El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, based on a paper from which Dr. Judith Curry concluded, ’no matter what, I am coming up with natural internal variability associated accounting for significantly MORE than half of the observed warming,’ which is contrary to the central premise of the IPCC’
Nature editorial: ‘The IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets’; ‘Some fear that the IPCC is putting too much weight on a series of studies suggesting that the climate may be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought’
CLIMATE STUDY: EVIDENCE LEANS AGAINST HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING — Group of 50 international scientists releases comprehensive new 1200-page report — The report, which cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored, also found that “no empirical evidence exists to substantiate the claim that 2°C of warming presents a threat to planetary ecologies or environments” and no convincing case can be made that “a warming will be more economically costly than an equivalent cooling.” The U.N.’s panel is scheduled to release its next report next month.
Skeptical report counters UN IPCC: ‘Report gives the truth about climate at last’ — ‘The scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth’s natural variations of temperature’
Indian newspaper: ‘Truth isn’t out there’: UN IPCC report ‘is being treated as infallible even before it is out…governments should decide on green taxes and subsidies according to their political inclinations, using climate science reports only as rough guides, not as justifications of scriptural force’
German Professor: ‘IPCC Science Finds Itself In A Serious Jam…5AR Likely To Be The Last Of Its Kind’ — UN IPCC In Crisis As Climate Predictions Fail: ‘There is a high probability we will witness the crackup of one of the most influential scientific paradigms of 20th century, & the implications for policy & global politics could be staggering’
Warmist journalist Nafeez Ahmed uses words like ‘shock’ and ‘dismay’ as he discovers ‘what some prominent scientists are saying about this issue might not actually be justified by available evidence”‘
‘Global warming advocates may be more Nostradamus than Galileo’ — Climatologist Dr. John Christy: ‘You can see that hurricanes are not increasing. Tornadoes are not increasing, droughts and floods are not increasing, snow cover is still around – in fact, last winter, the northern hemisphere had its largest extent of snow cover measure.’
‘Forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong’ – UN IPCC Report Leaked to UK Daily Mail: ‘IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability’
UN IPCC Calls In Moral Philosopher As People Cool On Global Warming: Critics mock: ‘They should be addressing basic questions of economic common sense, such as what’s the best way of spending money on climate change, not philosophical questions’