IPCC WGII report relies on exaggerated climate model results

So exactly what is the real evidence for global warming/climate change (man made)/ climate disruption etc?
1. T he Arctic ice is retreating – well yes, but that reversed sharply last year and the previous trend could have easily been all or partly caused by: i) atmospheric soot, ii) changing salinity levels, and iii) hydrothermal activity deep down on the ocean floor. And, of course, there is that pesky little problem that the Antarctic ice cap’s extent just keeps on growing.
2. The glaciers are melting – well yes, some are, but this is a process which began ~150 years ago, long before man had any impact on climate. More recently, soot may be an important part of glacial melt and of course, some are no longer retreating.
3. The sea levels are rising – well yes, maybe, but this is also a process which began ~150 years ago, long before man had any impact on climate. Another problem is this rate of sea level rise has been decelerating in recent years.
4. The polar bears are suffering/dying out etc. Well yes, maybe in very localised communities, but the vast majority are thriving and even becoming a pest.
5. There are more extreme weather events – well yes, perhaps in an alarmist’s imagination, but all reliable statistics suggest the opposite is true.
6. Crop failure and famine is imminent – well yes, but once again only in an alarmist’s imagination – crop yields continue to increase and increased CO2 has been seen to green the planet, as it is a natural fertiliser.
7. Global temperatures have risen 0.7-0.8 degrees C – well yes, if you mean the last 150 years and it has risen in three clearly defined 30 year periods (followed by cooling periods), the most recent ending in 1976/78. The recent 17 year ‘pause’ in the rise of global temperatures puts a hole in the bows of SS Global Warming.
8. The climate models clearly indicate Thermageddon is almost upon us – well yes, except the models have been shown almost ad infinitum to be hopelessly inaccurate and grossly exaggerate the effects of rising CO2 levels.
There there is the little matter that the geological record shows no evidence of CAGW. In fact in nature, a change in CO2 levels always follows a change of temperature, and not vice versa.
And also, why is the subject of natural climate cycles a heresy among alarmists?
So once again, where is the evidence of global warming, climate change etc?
And that is why most scientists and engineers believe CAGW is a complete crock.

It’s models all the way down.

The WG2 report is based on the unadjusted results of CMIP5 simulations. At the Stockholm meeting last September, WG1 decided not to accept CMIP5 outputs and replaced them with “assessed” projections of future temperatures which are about 40 percent lower.
At that point, the well-advanced WG2 process should have been halted and recommenced on the basis of the new projections. But that didn’t happen and WG2 simply soldiered on to report on impacts of the now- discredited model outputs.
How can WG2 results now be used in Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) which demand that the data from the two reports be compatible?

The alarm will come to a screeching halt when we run out of OPM (Other People’s Money) to pay for alarming reports.
We could have set up the IPEIAR (Intergovernmental Panel on Everything Is All Right) and got the same result without all of the annoying alarmism. The IPEIAR could have cruised along quietly, meeting in exotic locations and dining on the finest available, and each year write a massive report that ends with an SPM saying, “Everything is all right. Carry on.” But then we’d have to shut that down eventually when we run out of OPM to pay for reassuring reports.
For politicians, the IPCC is far more useful, so that’s the Panel we got. The money? Heck! It’s only other people’s money…

The AR5 WG2 results with respect to agriculture summarize studies which are themselves deeply flawed. Posted an example here in 2011. For example,they confound drought with extreme heat. When there is heat but water, there is no problem even during anthesis. For wheat,mthen confoundmthemineitable slowing of yields as Borlaugs rust resistant semi dwarf stains are finally adopted literally everywhere.
Then they extrapolate faulty results using faulty climate models. Worse, for agriculture the GCMs have to be regionally downscaled, making them even worse. Then they find ‘proof’ in corn and wheat price spikes caused respectively by ethanol biofuel and US draught (maize) and Russian drought ( wheat), both conditions since ameliorated.
Would get a D or an F as a term paper.

Predictions of the future are not science.
.
Computer models are not real data.
.
The 34 years of global average temperature data from weather satellites, from 1979 through 2013, are far from enough data to determine a long term temperature trend.
.
There are no other accurate sources of accurate global average temperature data — surface measurements are not global, and are not accurate — they are in an ever-changing environment.
.
Predictions of a coming catastrophe are a political tool, used for centuries by devious politicians, and religious leaders, to persuade people to do as they say.
.
The predictions do not have to come true for ‘leaders’ to gain power — they just have to be believed by a lot of people.
.
The coming climate change catastrophe is just the latest in a long series of predicted disasters that will never happen — a false crisis used by clever ‘politicians’ to get what they want.