Fears are growing that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could water down or even ditch its current finding that almost all types of extreme weather events have little or no sign of past human involvement, or any going forward to 2100.
The finding in its recent sixth assessment report is a major thorn in the side of alarmists since ‘extreme’ weather event attribution has recently risen to become the major scare tactic used to promote the Net Zero fantasy. The IPCC finding has been ignored and a large pseudoscience ‘attribution’ industry has been created within the Green Blob to feed improbable and uncheckable ‘scientists say’ stories into the mainstream. At a recent ‘scoping’ meeting to prepare for the IPCC’s seventh assessment report, the press release claimed, in direct contradiction of previous work, that a century of burning fossil fuels has resulted in “more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts”.
The position on not attributing bad weather directly to anthropogenic causes has been a great credit to the IPCC. It has often faced justifiable criticism in the past that it is a biased body highly selective in the science it highlights. Recent research from Clintel discovered that no less than 42% of its climate scenarios used worst-case ‘pathways’ of highly improbable temperature rises. Its ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (SPM) is a political document and has to be agreed by politicians from all 195 subscribing countries. Curiously, the IPCC assessment statement that the high-temperature pathway was of “low likelihood” was missing from the more widely-distributed SPM.
Nevertheless, the IPCC in its original 1998 remit is mandated with acting on an “objective, open and transparent basis” when investigating human-induced climate change. It is also established that its reports should be “neutral with respect to policy”. All the evidence points to these instructions being often ignored.
The distinguished science writer Roger Pielke Jr. sees clear dangers ahead noting the comments of the new IPCC Chair Professor Jim Skea at the recent COP 29 in Azerbaijan which he said focused entirely on advocacy. “I want to focus most of my remarks on the opportunities – and indeed the benefits – of near-term action. But first a few words on urgency,” said Skea. It is not within the IPCC’s mandate to call for action or implore urgency, observes Pielke. “There are plenty of groups who play that role. There is only one IPCC,” he added.
Of course it has long been observed that the original IPCC remit to investigate human-caused climate change leads inevitably to a slanted narrative. It was never on the cards that the IPCC would find humans had a negligible effect on the climate since its existence would be called into question. Twenty-five years later and an elite global political movement funded by almost unlimited subsidies has arisen to capture the commanding heights of economic and social life. It needs the IPCC onside, and the IPCC, and thousands of grant-hungry scientists, need it to survive.
Looked at in these terms, it is obvious that there will be pressure for the removal of the IPCC’s irritating statement that humans have not been causing much of the weather to get worse. The press release provides further clues about the possible future direction of travel. “Impacts are to intensify with every fraction of additional warming, particularly for the most vulnerable communities, accounting for 3.3-3.6 billion people.” Such precision in some scary numbers – where do they pull these figures from? For his part, Roger Pielke notes that the statement reads like “boilerplate from any garden-variety climate advocacy group, and not what one would expect from a leading international scientific assessment”.
Meanwhile, the attribution forces continue to grow. Professor Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the U.K. Met Office and recently appointed as a Special Adviser to the Climate Change Committee, recently said weather can only be attributed once all factors are considered and “human influence remains the only reasonable mechanism driving that change”. Just from these comments it might be understood why the IPCC has held back on attribution. Running a number of opinions about a chaotic, non-linear atmosphere full of complex natural variations through a computer model and concluding humans might be responsible is not science, it is pseudoscience since its findings cannot be checked or falsified.
Roger Pielke is particularly unimpressed with what he calls “weather attribution alchemy”. In his view, attribution science is a form of “tactical science”. Such science serves legal and political ends, and the work is “generally promoted via press release”. The IPCC itself has noted that the usefulness and applicability of available extreme weather attribution methods remain “subject to debate”. Unless scientists find a way to turn pseudoscientific opinion into scientific fact, it can only be hoped that the IPCC’s current stand against the attribution industry survives all the debate and political pressure in its forthcoming assessment review.
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.
Can Reiner Fuellmich be on the enquiry team? Along with Ivor Cummins, Carl Heneghan, Sunetra Gupta, Michael Yeadon etc.
I wouldn’t necessarily want them to be. I would like an inquiry simply where the members have an unbiased ability to look at evidence, and the technical skills to assess it, as well as a basic grasp of the issues.
I have no doubt that is pie in the f.ing sky, and there will be no holding to account for the biggest scam in post-war history. The judge and jury will be picked by the establishment and dependent on it.
One of the biggest scams of all time, especially when you consider the global nature of it
Not going to argue with that. I was just sticking to the easily verifiable, Julian.
How much would you bet that Lord Sumption won’t be part of it!
I’d bet my face mask on it.
As much as I would like to see an inquiry in to this fiasco, I fear it will be another white wash, it will last for years and add another £20 mil to the bill to find out “they acted correctly”. To be blunt, it will achieve auck fll.
If they do find anything it will be buried like the report into the islamic grooming gangs.
Not sure WHY the Rotherham voters recently CONTINUED to elect a mix of those who enabled the cover up, even if they did dump the original cover up conspiritant party.
Look how long Hillsborough went on for..
Don’t forget that Yeadon and Sunetra Gupta made the wrong call on herd immunity in spring 2020. I’m not sure they should be questioning the judgement of others.
If you were to exclude anyone who’d made a wrong call you might struggle to find anyone to do the questioning
Please explain
Sunetra Gupta was claiming that the UK had reached her immunity in March 2020 while Yeadon was asserting that the “pandemic was over” in summer 2020.
They were obviously wrong.
I seem to remember that winter excess deaths were less far above the expected level for the time of year than in April (and some of those would presumably have been caused by lockdown restrictions etc. Or indeed the vaccines…). And then there is the question of whether it actually was a pandemic in the proper sense.
…. and that’s the spectre at the feast – the lack of reliable data on Covid.
I speak as someone who’s just been fighting off adding to duff data by means of a crap nose invasion test (for which I was presented with zero real information).
That’s the standard fallback excuse. If the data disagrees with your agenda – blame the data.
The data’s not perfect but it’s good enough to pick out trends and correlations. e.g. the timing of peaks in cases, hospitalisation and deaths. The same agreements are evident in data from all across the world.
If there’s a fiddle going on then every country is using exactly the same fiddle.
Does the data match (a) personal experience (b) the experiences of people I trust (c) doctors I know and trust. Generally -Yes.
I’m not sure what this means but there was a big excess in April 2020.
Not in April. Most of the April peak deaths would have been infected before the lockdown.
Oh yes, in April.
Look, what I need to know is whether there is a link between the “vaccinating of over 75’s in France (which appears to have been continuing through April) and the extra reported deaths. And I need to know for certain.
Were they? In actuality, the ‘pandemic’ was only one in terms of half the old definition – conveniently altered by the WHO to exclude the question of severity. Remember – even at worst, Covid never reached epidemic levels in the community.
And nothing much happened until New Year, when an odd spike, correlated to the vaccination of the most vulnerable occurred – followed by a slower seasonal decline than usual. Yeadon’s mistake was in actually using the loaded term ‘pandemic’ in this context, and Gupta’s in not allowing for the possibility of vaccine deaths.
As to inaccuracy – remember the 4000 deaths a day predicted by Valance? That far outstrips any opposing errors.
I heard that the CQC were investigating the disproportionate no of deaths of the disabled, increasing the probability there was no pandemic ( previous definition) instead there was a withdrawal of medical care.
“The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had found that thirty-four-percent of people working in health and social care were pressured into placing ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) orders on Covid patients who suffered from disabilities and learning difficulties, without involving the patient or their families in the decision.
Well today we can confirm this scandal led to disabled people accounting for 3 in every 5 Covid deaths according to ONS figures.”
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/04/01/do-not-resuscitate-scandal-led-to-disabled-people-accounting-for-3-in-5-covid-deaths-according-to-ons-figures/
Of course the eugenicists never went away, and this is very worrying. In Iceland, children with cerebral palsy have been almost eliminated, and I’m afraid there are plenty of people who want to do similar things in other countries.
Yes – they were wrong. Many parts of the country had hardly been touched by the virus. There were very few infections in out neck of the woods in Spring but were hit hard in January. The large Birmingham Trust came under a lot of pressure in the New Year and – No – they weren’t vaccine deaths.
Ha – I see – the definition of a pandemic is the problem. Both Yeadon and Gupta were convinced that whatever we had in spring 2020 would not be repeated, This was drivel. The spring outbreak was likely cut short by seasonality. The outbreaks were too patchy to provide herd immunity. They were both badly wrong – AS I SAID AT THE TIME.
But cases were counted employing mass testing of asymptomatic persons, using the notorious PCR test at threshold cycles set too high. And anyone presenting any of the various virus symptoms (which might be caused by other infections) was deemed to have it. I believe they were more right than wrong.
Irrelevant. There was a peak in April and another peak in January. I knew several people who got a nasty bout of covid in January. I know people who work in hospitals who were reporting big increases in hospitalisations and deaths in January.
There people had Covid-19. While I accept that a number of cases and deaths reported in the figures may be invalid, it doesn’t alter the fact that there were 2 (possibly 3) waves and the later one was at least as big as the first.
You need to pay more attention to the doctors who we trust – particularly those in the US who are pushing for Ivermectin and other such treatments. They know Covid-19 is real. They know it’s real in Mexico – in Brazil – in Chile – in the rest of South America ..etc.
Utter nonsense! Weekly deaths were back to normal mid-June and stayed that way all through to October!
Was it a wrong call? Only if you equate it with total immunity.
And, certainly, they’ve not had the appalling record of SAGE – wrong on everything of significance.
Sorry – you’ll need to explain this? Herd Immunity does not mean that everyone in the population is immune. It means that enough people are immune that the virus is incapable of spreading ‘exponentially’, i.e. when an individual transmits the virus to more than one other person.
I seem to remember London was hit much less severely in the winter after suffering badly in April. Obviously this is not the case everywhere. Moray is seemingly one example.
I just want to say, in response to your many downvotes, that I welcome your posts that go against the conventional view around here. Healthy debate is needed.
That being said, in this case, I don’t see it as a problem that these people have made predictions that were wrong. People make mistakes and people on both sides of the argument have been wrong at times.
And Lord Jonathan Sumption.
Headed up by Lord Sumption will be ideal, but the wankers who will choose the inquiry team will ensure only supporters of this hysteria to be involved and that idiot physicist Ferguson will model the outcome
It’s far too soon for it to be anything other than a whitewash/nonsense about locking down sooner/better etc.
Better to wait a few years to stand a chance of some calm perspective returning.
No, very soon, before memories fade and more internet is disappeared. We have nearly all the evidence we need. Just got to get through the next flu season and we will know exactly what we are looking at.
Get all the important internet stuff backed up off-line. I remember the Guardian being ordered to take down their Snowden leaks stuff. Didn’t make any difference though as it was all backed up.
No – Julian’s right. Haste will just lead to repentance – and there is zero chance of a considered outcome if its rushed and involves so much admission of incredible wrongness.
Bound to be, I should think. It is imperative that some sort of credible alternative inquiry is organised. Complete with fact finding trips to Belarus, Sweden, Texas, Zambia….
you wouldn’t want to wait too long in case A) lot of documents get shredded in the interim or B) another one comes along and the same mistakes get repeated all over again until the UK has been annihilated – you know what pandemics are like – there isn’t one for ages and then 2 come along at once.
Fixed. Pointless.
Boris has written the conclusions already.
The victors write history.
well yes and no – don’t discount the dreaded Dom Cummings – he has it in for the PM
It’ll be like Blairs WMD’s inquiry which is actually very similar, WMD aka Covid and lies
I’ll save the expense -this is what it will say.
“Should have locked down earlier, should have mandated masks earlier, should have brought in vaccine passports to
blackmailencourageNot necessarily – but there will be no pinning down of the sheer error and venal stupidity. The worst will be sympathetic ‘tuts’ and ‘perhapses’.
So, quickly set the limited terms of enquiry and time scale to get this over with asap, and well before the real damage (UK economy, social impact of lockdown, experimental vaxx deaths/long term side effects, mental health, collapse of the NHS as a viable service, contract cronyism etc, etc) starts to become more and more apparent.
Then grease a few select palms…
…and hope that witless sap Keir Starmer is still opposition leader.
I must admit, Boris has always been adept at this sort of thing; but something tells me it’s simply not going to wash this time.
Let’s face it, we’ll likely be going over this for years, if not decades like Ballymurphy and Hillsborogh. only this time there are many millions of us, throughout the world. Hopefully they won’t get out of this so easily. We’ll learn the truth alright, the hard part will be getting those responsible held to account and owning up to it.
Witless sap is a perfect description. I will never vote Conservative, but Starner has now made me a lifelong Labour refugee. I’m completely politically deracinated.
becoming all too clear now, the politics that matters now is the people against vested interests.
We need a people’s enquiry. For the people, by the people. What we have faced is so historically audacious that we probably should have a referendum to decide how it is organized and who is on which panel. Impractical, I realize. The powers that be will already be deciding the witnesses, judge(s) and outcome, especially now they realize so many are onto them.
What people? There’s a handful of us, and a horde of zombies.
I love this idea. An independent people’s enquiry. I don’t see why this can’t happen.
FFS – the ‘people’ are largely already signed up to the defense.
wir sind das Volk
I said last time this came up, that any inquiry that happens will simply be used to bolster the fake reality they have created about a fake pandemic. Any inquiry that does not recognise that this was a political crisis; a power grab; an enormous assault on the public, etc, will be a farcical white wash.
We’ve heard them debating their fantasy shit in parliament, we’ve seen the complicit media arguing that the government failed to lockdown earlier and failed to keep us locked down longer. They’ll probably make accusations towards the public for lack of adherence to lockdown ‘rules’ too.
It’ll be a shower of shit, another kick in the gonades. We need prosecutions, not inquiries.
“recognise that this was… an assault on the public”.
Don’ t get your hopes up, the people behind this scam are bent on taking over the world. (probably bent too, come to think of it).
2020 is the year politics corrupted science. Once scumbag politics has been rinsed thoroughly from the science will truth prevail. I fucking hate politics
Or one of the years. The year people started to become more aware of it perhaps. My understanding is that politicians have long chosen scientific adviserfs to tell them what they want to hear. I seem to remember a story about a certain German regime in the 1930’s…
Whats the betting phrases like mistakes were made but lessons have been learnt, in the best public interest, unprecedented territory, nobody to blame etc.
My personal favourite: we are where we are…
Indeed – the most likely result.
How much weight do you think will be given to the fact that the basic fallacies were known by April 2020 by even the intelligent PC + Spreadsheet brigade.
IMO, the current crop of Poliarticians (right and left across the board) are all so bent that if they swallowed six inch nails they would en mass all shit out cork screws. ( just sayin’)
A complete waste of time, and a lot of it, I might be dead by the time its published. Which is a terrible indictement of our democratic and parliamentary processes.
As anyone who remembers ‘Yes Minister’ will know, Sir Humphrew will already have written the report, it just requires endless meeetings and debate before it can see the light of day.
Much as I am loath to admit it, I think that you are right. It will be arse covering on an industrial scale.
It’s only function will be to establish the price of Whitewash if purchased through Government procurement!
The most interesting thing about any enquiry will be the quality of the paint job. Whitewash, emulsion, distemper or gloss? Applied with brush, roller, paint sprayer? Pure white, off white, brilliant white?
Of one thing we can be sure. However blatantly bad and bodged the quality of the work, many corners will be unpainted without criticism, and the painters will follow their client’s wishes to the letter. All costs will naturally be billed to J
Public.
Will it be before or after the enquiries into who paid for his holiday or wallpaper ?
Will this be a similar enquiry as to why we haven’t got Ivermectin yet? You know the stuff that the public are largely unaware of? Or why we’re still using a defunct testing system, the one the public still think tells then they’ve got WuFlu? Or using gunk by the gallon, and putting bits of paper on their faces for no good reason? Or acting like brainless Lemmings, chucking themselves over a cliff just to get the Jabz?
Theres Zero chance of getting any answers because the great British public aren’t even asking any fu****g questions!
When Civil Servants want to hide government cock ups, thry simply declare that they will hold a public enquiry. The scope will be so wide and all encompassing that it will take years to complete.
By the time it is over, those responsible will have left government and those who cared will be either dead or have given up waiting.
Can I just lower the tone by saying that Boris in that pic looks like an inverse Minstrel show?
I’m so jaded and disillusioned by this last year that not even the idea of a public enquiry can cheer me up. If it’s like the one into Grenfell the conclusion will be that we should have known better than to trust the authorities and stay in place, and that the victims of the experimental gene therapy should have known better than to take it, as the information about side effects was all out there to be found if you looked hard enough. That masks were to make us feel better, and at the time we were all misled by some fall guy or other into thinking that HCQ, Ivermectin etc were ineffective.
More likely than not, there’ll be some fresh disaster to divert us all and the the country will behave like supine cowards begging King Boris to protect us in exchange for forgetting all the bad things he did. His resemblance to Henry VIII will increase with every passing day, (apart for the non-resemblance of his father to Henry VII).
The government must not be allowed to set the phrasing of the question.
In the words of Yes, Minister:
“But we don’t want a public inquiry! We want to find out what went wrong!”
Best buy shares in whitewash manufacturers now. There is no way we will have an open minded enquiry. Nobody will require the government to present cost/benefit analyses of mask wearing or lockdown.
It doesnt matter. It will be a whitewash, think Levison. It will be to back up Gov. policy and find they did a great job in saving untold lives and the UK economy. Absolving Boris and his cabal and making them legendary heroes, which the lockdowners will be eternally grateful for.
Wasn’t it Levison where the judge asked intelligent, probing questions and then came up with the result the government wanted? This will be the same
Anyone who trusts any promises from the current Prime Minister needs their head examining!