The credibility of the disaster-addicted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been dealt a damaging blow with recently-published research showing that 42% of its climate scenarios rely on improbable rises in future temperature that even the UN-funded body believes are of “low likelihood”. The research notes the IPCC admission of improbability is “deeply buried” in the full Sixth Assessment Reports (AR6), and is “unlikely to be read by the policy makers”. The authors note that significant and important sections of the full IPCC work emphasise these improbable claims, “potentially invalidating those sections of the report”.
Climate and emissions outline SSP5-8.5 assumes a rise of around 5°C by the end of the century. It was always somewhat detached from reality and has long been dealt a death blow, given that global warming ran out of steam about 25 years ago. Even the climate alarmist Zeke Hausfather is unimpressed, and his comments can be seen on the right of the graph below. Leaving aside the small natural boost from a very powerful EL Niño oscillation around 2016, warming is little more than 0.1°C over two decades. Nevertheless, SSP5-8.5 gives credence to 42% of the IPCC’s work in AR6.
The authors are damning about much of the IPCC’s work. In addition to emphasising worst-case scenarios, it rewrites climate history, has a “huge bias” in favour of bad news against good news, and keeps the good news out of its widely-distributed Summary for Policymakers (SPM). One notable contradiction surrounds flooding, where the AR6 IPCC report states with “low confidence” that humans have contributed to it, yet the Summary for Policymakers promotes the opposite, stating that human influence has increased “compound” flooding.
There have long been concerns about SPMs, which are written by Government officials and need to be agreed by all the political parties involved. Last year, the retired physicist Dr. Ralph Alexander wrote an illuminating paper that showed how science in the IPCC reports was twisted to fit a political narrative through the accompanying SPM. Further spin was then added to press releases, which are duly reported as fact by incurious mainstream media.
Climate ‘reparations’ are currently being whipped up as a major political issue. In 2020, a review article was published which showed that 52 out of 53 peer-reviewed papers dealing with ‘normalised disaster losses’ saw no increase in harms that could be attributed to climate change. The IPCC is said to have highlighted the single paper that claimed an increase in losses. In the view of the authors, that paper is flawed, “but its cherry-picking by the IPCC suggests it found its conclusions irresistible”.
The critical report is a substantial and forensic examination of the ‘settled’ science handed down from the UN, and is titled The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC. Running to 180 pages, it is written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists, and is published by the Clintel Foundation. The work examines the recently completed AR6 project, which comprises three working party reports, a synthesis and various SPMs. Last year, Clintel’s World Climate Declaration, signed by many scientists led by the Nobel physics laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, attracted an enormous audience on social media, with its declaration that there is no climate emergency. The Declaration states that climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound, self-critical science.
Are we at a fork in the road, ask two of the authors of the report. Will the UN, the IPCC and politicians finally realise that their 50-year old anthropogenic warming hypothesis is out of date, and incorporate the new natural warming forces discovered in the past 30 years into their work and projections? The current lack of certainty about the effect of a number of gases in the atmosphere is said to be just as uncertain as it was in 1979. It is a sign that the hypothesis is missing a major component or process.
A notorious claim made by the IPCC is that “global temperatures are more likely than not unprecedented in the past 125,000 years”. This statement obliterates the Holocene Thermal Maximum from around 9,800-5,700 years ago, where there is substantial evidence that temperatures were often higher than the present in many parts of the world. The IPCC claims that current warming is unprecedented in the last 2,000 or even 125,000 years “are very unconvincing to say the least”, say the authors. In this case, the IPCC seems to act like George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth by rewriting Earth’s climate history.
On sea rises, there is obvious suspicion about the conclusions reached and promoted in increasingly alarmist tones around the world. AR6 states sea level rise is accelerating, but “the evidence for this is rather thin”. Tide gauge readings are said to show “remarkably linear behaviour for more than a century”. It is said that the IPCC conflates its recent “acceleration” with multidecadal variability, notably the effect of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. This should become clear in the next 20 years, and it is “preliminary to claim there is an acceleration in sea level rise”. Al ‘boiling oceans’ Gore is a noted IPCC hysteric helped by the suggestion of a 500 zettajoules rise in ocean heat content since the turn of the 19th century. The ocean has warmed a little since that time as the Earth rebounded from the little ice age. The 500 zettajoules is a change of 0.03% in the global ocean energy content. “The IPCC avoided giving this important background information,” the authors observe.
They conclude that most of the recent reports published by the IPCC have “continued to deteriorate in quality and increase in bias with time, as is evident to anyone who has read all of them”. No honest assessment of AR6 would conclude it is fair and unbiased – quite the opposite, they add.
This remarkable report contains a wealth of climate science, most of which has been hidden by mainstream academia and media. It is likely to add to the growing debate about the political role now played by the IPCC operation in promoting the collectivist Net Zero agenda. The ramping up of extreme climate projections is accepted without question by most media. Without a climate crisis, there is no legitimacy for political change. The climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry recently noted that UN climate panic, “is more politics than science“. The absence of evidence has been supplanted by computer models laughably attributing individual weather events to human-caused climate change. As the Clintel report shows, improbable scenarios forecasting fanciful rises in near-term temperature are fiercely clung to, although nobody really believes in them anymore.
But then it is not really about science anymore, is it? Recently the Guardian ran a long article by its U.S. correspondent Rebecca Solnit called for winning the popular imagination by providing new stories on climate. What she called ‘climate denial’ has been combated by tales of ‘climate-driven catastrophes’ promoted by activists and journalists. According to Solnit, recognising the reality of climate breakdown means limiting the freedom of the individual, “in the name of the wellbeing of the collective”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Limiting the freedom of the individual in the name of the wellbeing of the collective, as we have seen, particularly over the last three years, has a name:
Socialist Fascism
‘Anti individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State’
Benito Mussolini ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ 1932
So how much does that little lot, with their individual name plates, lined up behind the fancy sign, cost us per year. Both in terms of money and our individual freedom.
Maybe they’re looking at the wrong charts when making their catastrophic predictions. I can show them one that blows their hot air right back to where it belongs..
Oh.. and there’s this.. CO2 The Gas that keeps on Giving..
This video clip, showing a panel of climate scientists, suggests that during the last 10,000 years the Earth has been warmer than now 90% of the time – and the same applies over the 4.6 billion years of the Earth’s existence.
https://youtu.be/mqejXs7XgsU
So, because something is unlikely, we better make sure it NEVER happens, by doing stuff that won’t make any difference to the thing that is unlikely to happen. ——————That is the state of government policy today on energy and climate. A bigger pseudo scientific fraud you could not imagine.
Excellent. Please also see this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmdBbs3O1g4&t=910s
Why there is no ‘climate crisis’
Thanks for that but I have read over 200 books on this issue and have been looking into all aspects of it for the last 16 years or so. That particular clip you sent me is really just a simplistic little ditty. ——–If you want to get into the meat of the issue try reading—- “”Hubris” by Michael Hart.— “Taken by Storm” by Christopher Essex and Ross Mckitrick or “Energy and Climate Wars” by Peter Glover and Michael J Economides. ————-But once again thanks for your reply .
It’s so infuriating to know that our governments are spending our (my) money on this “deeply buried” shyte when they know its all bo#@=ks anyway! Arrggh!!!!
So it’s going to cost us trillions because of a half arsed guess?
“But then it is not really about science anymore, is it?”
It never was. It was always a plan to impose Global Governance and Communitarianism – which first required the “taking over” of western democracies, particularly those in the Anglosphere, whose roots were the Common Law.
I was wondering when such a comment would appear and was beginning to think it would have to be me again.
Climate change – because climate always used to be permanent (
) – is the biggest, nonsensical lie in the history of this planet.
For ‘climate’ substitute ‘control.’
Surely they wouldn’t use such a dastardly trick on us would they Huxley. I refuse to accept that the Royalty, Bankers, Aristocratic Elite, Freemasons etc that I’ve looked up to all my life would lie to me. Would they ?????
No its not about science.. its part of the control regime..
Christian Aid week is coming up. This is an organisation long since captured by the net-zero crazies. Their so-slanted promotional leaflets have a tear-off section at the back where you are asked to compose a prayer for “climate justice”, whatever that may be. You send it in to them, freepost, and they say they will add it to their online gallery.
I’ve already sent in a couple. One gives thanks for the creation of wonderful fossil fuels. The second one asks for deliverance from the net zero cult and pleads for them to see the harm they do.
I’ll do others in similar vein when I can get hold of more leaflets. Why not have a go as well? I can’t wait to see them all in their online gallery.
Thanks for letting us know. I look forward to receiving my envelope.
Yippee!
Yet many people too busy with work and family life to investigate issues are of the opinion that what comes from the IPCC is “Science”. Those people take the view that if all scientists are saying something is true then who are they to disagree. So they mostly just accept it all. ————-That is such a pity, because what these people promote isn’t science at all. It is “Official Science”. It is computer modelling full of assumptions that don’t match what is actually happening in the real world, and our governments are using that “official science” of irrational fears about the climate to make public policy like NET ZERO. Those policies are harmful to our prosperity and well being. They always talk of the risks of using fossil fuels without ever mentioning the risks of NOT using them. Life expectancy has doubled because of those fuels, and there are over a billion people who don’t have them sitting burning dung for heating and cooking dying young from preventable diseases and of back breaking labour. ————-Wake up people. Eco Socialism is NOT science. You are being played for fools.
Net zero = net humanity = Depopulation.
It is as simple as that.
Sure is..
And yet I fear that the people will vote in a Labour Government who will double down on all this net-zero nonsense like the modern day equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition.
My worst fear is a hung parliament where Labour and the Greens form a government. What would the Greens demand as the price of their support? Terrifying.
There is precious little difference between GangGreen policy and Tory HMG policy anyway.
Let alone Labia and Limp Dim party policies.
All the “opposition” fraction of the Uniparty monolith ask for is “Sooner! Harder! Longer!
Where have we heard that before?
Vote Reform. It will tear up Net zero legislation.
Here is a graph of energy sources per country and measured in TWh. What is not shown are the planned expansion of each energy source. China and India have several hundred coal fired power stations planned. With all the noise about ‘green’ energy one would be mistaken for thinking it was the main source of energy for many. The UK has a proportionally larger share, but that has been achieved by throttling energy demand. But look at the entire picture for context.
The warmists are just science deniers. There, playing them at their own game.
What a pathetic “Cunch of Bunts” !
If the Ice Age happened 10000 years ago and homo-sapiens have been around just over 4000 years. Was it Fred Flintstones’ fault?
No.. Wilma’s..
No, it was the huge quantity of CO2 and Methane pushed out by the mining dinosaur “machines”. I liked the Brontosaurous one best, with a winch to raise the neck!