UN IPCC AR5 climate reports: Conjecture disguised as certainty

UN IPCC WG report process fails to integrate critical information

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The world has experienced over the last 15+ years a remarkable absence of increasing global temperatures despite huge and growing increases in global CO2 emissions by the globes developing nations and despite claims by the UN IPCC that global temperature increases are dangerously out of control because of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. This embarrassing dichotomy is demonstrated in the diagram below.
clip_image002
The UN IPCC has completed its three part (WGI, WGII, WGIII) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) process where future climate findings are portrayed using “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood” qualifiers that attempt to cast these outcomes in a cloak of scientific certainty.

Much of the analysis underlying these “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood” climate findings are based upon the computer output obtained through the use of climate models identified as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP’s) cases 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 scenarios. Climate model RCP2.6 represents a low future CO2 emissions scenario case and climate model RCP8.5 represents a high future CO2 emissions scenario.

 

Future climate model temperature projections show higher global temperatures and increased climate risk with larger levels of atmospheric CO2 scenarios (RCP8.5) and lower global temperatures and reduced climate risk with less  atmospheric CO2 scenarios (RCP2.6).

As addressed in the WGI Technical Summary report all climate model scenarios have significant scientific analysis limitations which are defined as: “The scenarios should be considered plausible and illustrative, and do not have probabilities attached to them.” Thus there are no defined standards of accuracy associated with the climate model outputs and further these computer temperature outputs are to be considered to be simply “plausible and illustrative”.

In Chapter 11 of the WGI report an analysis of the climate model scenarios is carried out for the time period 2005 through 2035 by comparing the computer projected temperature outputs to actual observed global temperatures. This analysis shows that all climate model scenarios from RCP2.6 to RCP8.5 exaggerate and overstate higher global temperatures as a function of levels of atmospheric CO2 as shown in Figure 11.25a below.

clip_image004

As a consequence an estimate of future likely global temperature increase to the year 2035 is developed in WGI using “expert assessment” instead of relying on the exaggerated climate model computer generated temperature projections. This “expert assessment” likely future global temperature range is shown in Figure 11.25b as shown below.

clip_image006

This WGI “expert assessment” estimate lies at the very low end of the RCP CMIP5 climate model 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 scenario projected temperature ranges as indicated in the diagram below which is derived from Figure 11.25c.

clip_image008

The WGI report climate model temperature projection analysis through the year 2035 demonstrates not only that the models exaggerate future higher global temperature increases but also that relying on these model scenario outputs beyond 2035 and all the way to the year 2100 is highly questionable, unjustified and an extremely speculative analytical approach.

The WGI report demonstrates and documents that the RCP climate model scenarios have significant analytical limitations with no defined standards of accuracy, outcomes that are considered to be simply “plausible and illustrative” and that these scenarios exaggerate and overstate higher global temperatures as a function of atmospheric CO2 levels even to periods as close as the year 2035 let alone the year 2100.

Yet the WGII and WGIII climate risk assessment reports conceal these significant analytical and performance shortcomings of the climate model scenarios and instead base the projected future CO2 driven global temperature levels upon the computer output from these flawed and failed climate models.

The diagram below from the WGII SPM report shows the scenarios RCP2.6 to RCP8.5 that are used to define and bound the low to high emissions global temperature range used to assess climate risks. The WGI analysis of the estimated future global temperature increase to year 2035 clearly suggests the RCP2.6 scenario range is more likely to characterize the behavior of future global temperatures than RCP8.5.

clip_image010
Amazingly the WGII and WGIII reports derive the majority of their future climate risk concerns not from RCP2.6 but rather from RCP8.5 despite the clear scientific evidence contained the WGI report that CO2 driven higher temperature model projections are overstated and exaggerated.

Thus the climate alarmist findings from the UN IPCC WGII and WGIII climate risk assessments are based upon computer temperature outputs which have no defined standards of accuracy, are merely considered to be “plausible and illustrative” and are known to exaggerate and overstate higher global temperatures as a function of atmospheric CO2 level. Furthermore these findings are cloaked in illusive “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood” qualifiers that attempt to hide the conjecture underlying these results.

The UN IPCC AR5 report process is in fact a process founded upon conjecture but presented and disguised as certainty.

About these ads

66 thoughts on “UN IPCC AR5 climate reports: Conjecture disguised as certainty

  1. Did they ever figure out the cloud problem? How about why the surface warming faster than the mid-troposphere (the ubiquitous “hot spot”)?

  2. Wrt the AR5, Larry Hamlin said:

    “This embarrassing dichotomy [. . .]”

    – – – – – – – – –

    Larry Hamlin,

    You post highlights the IPCC dichotomy well. Thanks for That context.

    There is a different dichotomy at the broader level in the interaction between IPCC process advocates and independent skeptical critics of the IPCC process; an amusing dichotomy.

    The amusing dichotomy is the hysteric antics of climate exaggerationalism (IPCC) versus the routine uneventfullness of climate unexceptionalism (skeptics). : )

    John

  3. One cannot read this assessment without thinking that the scaremongering applied based on the high end model runs is blatantly fraudulent, deliberately deceptive and utterly deplorable. It would seem that the UN’s absence of any jurisdiction that can prosecute them is uppermost in their thinking.

  4. “The UN IPCC has completed its three part (WGI, WGII, WGIII) Fifth Assessment Report”

    What is the UN doing about Russia, Pootin’ and Ukraine ?!?! We didn’t create the UN to give us damn weather forecasts for 2100!

  5. So much to learn; so little time.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/08/12/211364006/this-pulsing-earth

    http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2011/04/09/pulsating-planet-superhot-rocks-make-the-earth-roll/

    At least some people are not totally focused on CO2 as “the” cause of climate change. Many researchers are looking at various aspects of the puzzle of how the planet came to be as it is. Fascinating. The universe and the minds that try to fathom it are amazing. I learn from this site, and whet my appetite to look for other interesting information and hypotheses.

    Thank you Anthony.

  6. Did they ever figure out the cloud problem?

    I don’t think they ever quite figured out that clouds were a problem.

    It was all just atmospheric water to them. Besides, if they had done any figuring, they might have figured out something they didn’t want to figure on.

  7. Larry Hamlin:

    Overall good article!

    In seeking to lead the masses to false or unproved conclusions, the IPCC employs the equivocation fallacy by means that include conflating the term “projection” with the term “prediction.” This being the case, it would have been better if you had titled the first of your figures “Warming Projections vs. the Real World.” Projections (which are made by IPCC models) differ from predictions (which are not made by IPCC models) in the respect that the former are non-falsifiable while the latter are. To conflate the two terms is to conflate a pseudo-science with a science.

  8. Gamecock says:
    We didn’t create the UN to give us damn weather forecasts for 2100!
    ———————-

    LOL. Love it!

  9. Assuming that the sun has nothing to do with it.

    That noise was Galileo turning in his grave.

  10. No such thing as man-made Global Warming! A true Hoax based on greed, money and power! Carbon tax etc… The real story will be the cold coming from the current Little Ice Age we are now in! Wake up before it is to late and you freeze your ass off!

  11. Maybe “Illustrative and plausible” should be re-phased “for entertainment purposes only”…

  12. Gamecock: the UN IPCC goal includes redistributing wealth in the interests of social justice. We all know that climate and social justice are inseparable concepts that will guarantee world peace.

  13. There appears to be about a years worth of observed data missing from the charts (Figures 11.25 a,b). Which means, at time of publication, the real world was already below the projected range! I would suggest, this is not a good look for the IPCC! ;-)

  14. In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers.
    The key factor in making CO2 emission control policy and the basis for the WG2 and 3 sections of AR5 is the climate sensitivity to CO2 . By AR5 – WG1 the IPCC itself is saying: (Section 9.7.3.3)
    “The assessed literature suggests that the range of climate sensitivities and transient responses covered by CMIP3/5 cannot be narrowed significantly by constraining the models with observations of the mean climate and variability, consistent with the difficulty of constraining the cloud feedbacks from observations ”
    In plain English this means that the IPCC contributors have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore there is no credible scientific basis for the WG 2 and 3 reports .In addition the RCPs on which the temperature forecasts actually depend are entirely fanciful conjecture so that the Government policy makers also have no realistic economic basis for supporting the UNFCCC process or for their economically destructive climate and energy policies.
    From now on a different non modeling approach must be used for forecasting. Forecasts of the timing and amount of a possible coming cooling based on the 60 and 1000 year natural quasi-periodicities in the temperature and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the best proxy for solar activity are presented in several posts at

    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

  15. The modellers, meanwhile, are feeding projections to the politicians that are even more extreme and unrealistic, and these projections are being used to drive public policy. When Prime Minister Gillard introduced a carbon tax in Australia, she cited a figure of 5 degrees C warming from 2010 to 2070. This figure came from a CSIRO model.

    Yet look at the IPCC 11.25a and you will that this is incompatible with any model being discussed in the IPCC reports. The modellers are playing a double game, presenting one set of data for scientific debate (and even that is unrealistic and alarmist) but another set, even more extreme, to drive public policy. It is the latter that is more important, and should be the focus of debate.

  16. AussieBear says:
    April 15, 2014 at 8:00 pm
    Maybe “Illustrative and plausible” should be re-phased “for entertainment purposes only”…

    This must be the most expensive entertainment show we’ve ever seen in our lifetime – and the awful band line-up still plays on even though most of the audience walked out during the interval.

  17. No AGW, no IPCC, now do you think they will go for ‘scaring guesswork’ or ‘accurate and boring ‘ ?
    In short these are people who are looking to justify their own existence and for some political ideology.
    Expecting the IPCC to be honest is like expecting a dog not to have fleas .

  18. I’m a police officer. If I was to arrest people based on “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood”… Oh boy… Let’s just say I wouldn’t be a police officer much longer.

  19. Gamecock says: (April 15, 6:48 pm)
    “We didn’t create the UN to give us damn weather forecasts for 2100!”

    “We” didn’t create the UN at all.
    “They” did. And it shows, in everything the UN does.

  20. We should also take issue with ‘Observations (4 data sets)’ as these are not the actual observations but the result of homogenisation, in-filling, adjusting and beating-until-they-confess adjustments which are called ‘observations’.

    The primary reason this site was established was the probable errors in ‘observations’ that Anthony and his crowd-sourcing found. Take away the adjustments and the discrepancies between actual and modeled anomalies are even worse.

  21. its another iraq dossier.

    Given ex co chair IPCC, ex Head Met Office now at Hadley Climate Model Centre Houghton’s eco christian views on the lack of dealing with co2 is ‘This lack of will is a spiritual problem… that not to care for the earth is a SIN….. But have we as Christians thought about repenting for our lack of care for the earth?’ http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/houghton.htm and that it is a christian imperative to spread equality [climate taxes?] then scaring people with model predictions is the tin opener for fulfilling these eco christian ambitions ?

    isn’t bearing false witness also a sin?

    some eco christians see climate change as the way ‘to provoke’ the second coming

    so the reason why co2 seems LIKE a religion its because those right at the heart of it have that viewpoint? The son reflects the father.

  22. Sine wave – last I heard the Gillard govt had quietly gifted 10% of our carbon tax revenue to the un/pic for “research” or summat. There is a start on “who funds the IPCC” question.

  23. “The world has experienced over the last 15+ years a remarkable absence of increasing global temperatures despite huge and growing increases in global CO2 emissions by the globes developing nations and despite claims by the UN IPCC that global temperature increases are dangerously out of control because of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels …”
    ===============================
    Now that Kevin Trenberth has declared that the IPCC position to be the null hypothesis and in view of the above, what is the statistical likelihood that human CO2 emissions are the overwhelming climate forcing factor.
    Professor Lovejoy, are you there?

  24. We us people, are forced to drop all fossil fuel energy capacities and replace them with green alternatives until the year 2050. But, countries like Australia want to maintain their coal burning capacities because they think that they have a new technology that is able to drastically decrease the carbon emissions during coal burning. I read something about this here http://www.alternative-energies.net/for-more-decades-since-now-australias-main-energy-source-remain-the-coal/
    With this type of political decisions who will do something to accomplish what the UN want?

  25. I think this is the third time Hamlin has brought this up and it cannot be emphasized enough.

    Amazingly the WGII and WGIII reports derive the majority of their future climate risk concerns not from RCP2.6 but rather from RCP8.5 despite the clear scientific evidence contained the WGI report that CO2 driven higher temperature model projections are overstated and exaggerated.

    Also bear in mind that the IPCC speculates across the board about impacts.

    IPCC SPM
    ……Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high
    confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16……..

    No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

  26. @Non Nomen.
    + Fukashima ’11. Its off Japan effects are decimating the only large scale power source industry that is sustainable, viable, and affordable.

  27. Larry, Anthony,
    I was asked for an article for an engineering magazine on sceptical case. Could I use your first figure – Warming Predictions vs real world? Can I get a higher res version? Is there are source reference?

    Ulick Stafford

    [Reply: This request should be in Tips&Notes. ~ mod.]

  28. The late Stephen Schneider sought in Schneider and Moss (2002) to give some consistency to the” Levels of Confidence “, used by authors in IPCC papers . He has explained his rationale in defining “likelihood ” and attempting to give some consistency to what ” likely ” means. He can be seen in YouTube presentations, explaining this .
    One author might regard a 25% possibility as ” likely”, while another might require a 99% rating. In the Australian “Insight” program on YouTube I viewed recently, Schneider appeared before an audience of 52 “deniers” .He stressed that while he hoped this would ensure a level of consistency among authors , he did not assert it would guarantee certainty of outcome.
    So an assessment by the College of Cardinals at Rome that it is ” extremely likely ” that a personal God exists may still permit spirited denial of that proposition (My view not Schneider’s).

  29. You can’t prove us wrong, Anthony. Many now realise the gravito-thermal effect is a reality and you can’t prove it doesn’t exist in a Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube. There’s nothing quite like this empirical evidence which thus proves any greenhouse warming effect is pure fiction.

  30. There is a lot of talk of fraudulence around climate science. For some I believe that’s true. But for many scientists (like Mann) I don’t believe it’s true. They believe their bogus theory so much they simply can’t see anything else. To them high CO2=high Temperature from basic fundamental principles. It’s like the law of gravitational attraction. We all know the constant is 9.8m/s^2. Someone drops a feather and says “see, gravity doesn’t work the same way here” but we also know air resistance is also a factor.

    The rational person says “I need to accurately calculate how fast things fall. Not only do I include the force of gravity, but air resistance too, and probably other terms”

    But many irrational scientists are so focused on the primary factor they can’t acknowledge the important practical deviations from real observation. Rather than taking a step back and saying “CO2 should increase temps but temps aren’t going up, I should look at the other things” they say “I know CO2 is driving temps. Look at the basic physics. Look at Arrhenius. It’s only a matter of time that it takes over”. Problem is, like the feather, it might not take over because of everything else they aren’t considering.

    I work in a very scientific field with scientists and engineers. I see this behavior frequently from the scientists. You show them an actual measured plot of solubility decreasing with polymer viscosity increase and a self proclaimed PhD expert starts yelling (yes, yelling). “There’s no way that can happen. I can’t see how that can happen. Nothing I studied would argue for that” yet there it is…in real life with real data, it did happen. But he simply won’t accept the data and claims his “knowledge” is still sound and needs no rethinking. Is he fraudulent, is he lying.? No, but he’s severely misguided and that definitely doesn’t help the team, especially when many people hang on his words.

  31. you would have to be crazy to read anything into the last 30 years. What amazes me is how the worlds temps stay so static within a few degrees over thousands for years.

  32. “We didn’t create the UN to give us damn weather forecasts for 2100!”

    We didnt create the UN at all !
    The Global Banking community did.

    Environmental policy is being dictated to us all by the banks

  33. For myself, whenever I post anywhere on the topic of “climate change,” I always end with “Don’t believe me, go look for yourselves. The four official data sets [names them] are all available on line.”

    I don’t know if it helps, but at least it keeps my posts from just being unsupported assertions, like so much of of this conversation becomes.

  34. Ah ha! They take a page from the book on ENSO forcasting. There are statistical models, dynamical models, and consensus opinion. Granted they have tightened up the process used for “consensus” opinion. But nonetheless, it appears the ENSO group of forcasters don’t believe their suite of dynamical or statistical models any more than the IPCC summary group believes in their climate projection models. Esle why the need for a “consensus” opinion laid on top of the models (or in this case nearly underneath them)?

    The cat is out of the bag. Stop funding the &^%$# model groups.

  35. @jauntycyclist

    Met someone in a pub who had travelled round the world looking for a good job in environmentalism, which she had found in that city.

    I asked her what if CO2 wasn’t the main problem, what if other types of pollution were worse?

    She replied that, “it doesn’t matter if CO2 isn’t a problem, because by reducing CO2 you force a reduction in production and consumption… it is about reducing greed.”

    A lot of the pomo culture doesn’t believe in facts anymore, it just creates them to support a narrative to change culture and make people less racist, more giving, more egalitarian, etc., “global justice”. That’s the higher ideal. They are “smarter” than you, and think you won’t notice that it is propaganda. Unfortunately they also don’t seem to understand that undermining Western civilisation and values of Modernity (reason, democracy, innovation) can only end badly.

  36. The results spewing from the computers are so much pretty paper signifying nothing when their virtual world is compared with the real one.

  37. If pigs had wings, it is “plausible and illustrative” that they could fly. The flying pig models (FPMs) show that the incidence of flying pigs will be increasing, creating havoc in the skies. Pig waste falling into residential areas will cause increased illness and disease, and the consequent need for more doctors and medical facilities, which will be under constant strain. The various pig-flying scenarios (PFS) depend on the number of pigs growing wings, how quickly they learn to fly, how high, etc. PFWG1 is already hard at work determining how best to both prevent and contain this potentially catastrophic reality.

  38. A Climate Alarmism Dictionary:
    * Accelerated Sea Level Rise – places sinking into the ocean faster than the water’s rising.
    * Accurate Temperature Measurement – what the thermometer showed after being placed beside the BBQ grill.
    * Climate Alarmist – insists others don’t know what they’re talking about, but knows even less.
    * Environmentalist – Leads a carbon intensive lifestyle, well beyond the means of the average public. Visits pristine areas often but doesn’t want anyone else to go there.
    * Global Warming – not the run-of-the-mill average warming, but disastrous, nasty warming like wearing thermal underwear in Death Valley. Eskimos will be wearing Speedo’s if we don’t do something by the next election cycle.
    * Movie Star – arrives at a movie premiere in a Prius, after flying there in their private jet from one of their huge mansions. Loves to preach sacrifice to others who live from paycheck to paycheck. Advocates all kinds of burdensome carbon taxes because the government can’t tax their fortune more than once.
    * Ocean Acidification – Hell will freeze over before carbon dioxide turns the oceans acidic, but it’s the best scare tactic that we’ve got.
    * Overpopulation – Anyone else daring to have children.
    * Sacrifice for Your Children and Grandchilden – we don’t even care about the people alive today, but it’s a great sales technique to persuade the public to choke down policies that will hurt everybody.
    * Statesman – worries about the effects of DDT and golden rice on a wealthy nation, but ignores the countless deaths and child blindness of others in poor countries who could be saved by their use.
    * TV Climate Special – scary pictures at a 3rd grade level, suitable for chimpanzees.
    * Unprecedented Warming – actually occurred many times before, but lying to the public might work.

  39. According to some, if you were born after April 16, 1994 you and your children have experienced zero days of global warming. The High School graduating class of 2005 is the last to have experienced, ever briefly, global warming in their life time. There have been six generations of guppy fish come and gone that have never experienced global warming.

    The graphs in the OP show global warming for all causes which is a form of distortion of facts. The only part that matters is the human-caused warming. I mention this because the Totems of the graduating classes of 2006 – 2013 of Sammamish High School in Bellevue, Washington have had no part at all in creating global warming. GO Totems!

    Share this with your grads because they too have been and are being penalized through green taxes, unwarranted social engineering, and badly taught climate education for a problem they have not contributed to.

  40. Along with meteorologists and geologists, one of the professions that has viewed CAGW with skepticism is engineering. Us engineers do probability and risk assessments for a living, we need to see every variable reasonably bounded to trust a prediction. Thanks to Larry for a succinct presentation of exactly the sort of problem that makes us skeptical!

  41. Just think of the children. I’m talking about those born 1990 and beyond, so anyone up to age 24. All they have ever known, and had drumbed into them through the schools is Alarmism. Only those fortunate enough to have at least one skeptic parent might have been able to avoid being brainwashed.
    I have a niece who is extremely bright. Her parents are Believers though, so it’s no surprise that she Believes too. It’s very sad. My guess is that the schools make no mention of “The Pause”. That truth would be terribly inconvenient for them.

  42. Excellent post. Clear, concise, and to the point. Alarmists can only bluster in response.

  43. Terry Oldberg says:
    April 15, 2014 at 7:19 pm
    Projections (which are made by IPCC models) differ from predictions (which are not made by IPCC models)
    ==============
    “projection” is a weasel word. The IPCC 2nd report identified that accurate climate predictions were impossible due to chaos. So rather than recognize that the model results were misleading garbage, they labelled them “projections”.

    in effect the models are not telling us the future. They are saying “here is the trend” based upon the past. The models are curve fitting. They are parametrically tuned to hindcast, using aerosols as the tuning knob, and the curves are then projected forward in time.

    • Fred Berple:

      Well said. To restate your observation in philsophical language, global warming climatologists (including skeptics) are persistently guilty of drawing logically illegitimate conclusions from equivocations. An “equivocation” is an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. Here an equivocation is produced by treating the terms “predict” and “project” as synonyms though they have different meanings.

  44. Niff,
    That’s because the U.N. is blatantly fraudulent, deliberately deceptive and utterly deplorable.

  45. The IPCC projections say “assumes no large volcanoes”. That in itself is unrealistic, because volcanoes are a routine occurrence. They are like storms. You can’t be sure when they will happen, but you can be sure they will happen.

    So how can the IPCC place confidence in their projections, when the underlying assumption of “no large volcanoes” cannot be assumed with confidence?

    We are confident that our finding are true, so long as something that is likely but that we cannot predict does not happen.

  46. Gamecock says:
    April 15, 2014 at 6:48 pm
    What is the UN doing about Russia, Pootin’ and Ukraine ?!?! We didn’t create the UN to give us damn weather forecasts for 2100!
    =============
    If you follow our dictates (send us lots of money) we can guarantee that Pootin’ won’t be a problem in 2100. Russia and Ukraine, we project won’t be a problem either. Money back guarantee. If the problem is still there in 2100, we will give you back every cent.

  47. The UN are like doctors. Come to them with a cold they will prescribe expensive medicine that will cure you in 14 days. However, if you ignore them the cold will last a full two weeks.

  48. jauntycyclist said:
    >> some eco christians see climate change as the way ‘to provoke’ the second comingso the reason why co2 seems LIKE a religion its because those right at the heart of it have that viewpoint? The son reflects the father.<<

    If you mean that devout Christians might be a heavy influence in the CAGW movement, I seriously doubt that. I sure don’t know of any, myself. We are interested in scientifically based, sane pollution control, as has been put in place to great effect by the economically developed West in the last 4o years or so. The undeveloped, suffering 3rd world should be given the same privilege – get themselves out of abject poverty – with our help – as cheaply and quickly as possible, then give them time to clean up, just as we have done. It will be quicker for them to clean up since technology has advanced so much in the last decades.

    The CAGW movement – like the Population Bomb movement, can be described as religious, but not Christian. Any Christians who take part are, I am sorry to say, just useful idiots for a profoundly unChristian worldview.

  49. Thanks, Larry. You have said it well.
    “The UN IPCC AR5 report process is in fact a process founded upon conjecture but presented and disguised as certainty.”
    Can we stop the political machine that threatens to bring and end to humankind?
    The signs of world poverty are already starting to show.

  50. braddles says:
    April 15, 2014 at 9:03 pm

    The modellers, meanwhile, are feeding projections to the politicians that are even more extreme and unrealistic, and these projections are being used to drive public policy. When Prime Minister Gillard introduced a carbon tax in Australia, she cited a figure of 5 degrees C warming from 2010 to 2070. This figure came from a CSIRO model.

    That is probably the incorrect sequence. The (funding) politicians are requesting the modellers provide suitably extreme ‘projections’ to allow the politicians to claim that ‘climate (sic) is the number one threat to security’ and drive public policy (aka raise extreme taxes). The complete and demonstrable lack of ethics in academia ensures that the modelling departments accede willingly to these requests from their funders.

  51. David L. says:

    There is a lot of talk of fraudulence around climate science. For some I believe that’s true. But for many scientists (like Mann) I don’t believe it’s true. They believe their bogus theory so much they simply can’t see anything else.

    Psychopaths must live their lie. Their lie has to become one with them, or they aren’t convincing.

    Somewhere in the back of Mann’s mind he knows that his ‘hockey stick’ nonsense is scientific bunkum. If he really believed it, he would eagerly debate skeptical scientists. But the ‘stick is Mann’s lie. He owns that lie. It is so much a part of him that he would be shattered if he was forced to admit the truth.

    I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

    ~Leo Tolstoy

  52. Gamecock says:
    April 15, 2014 at 6:48 pm
    “What is the UN doing about Russia, Pootin’ and Ukraine ?!?! We didn’t create the UN to give us damn weather forecasts for 2100!”

    The UN was created to fight the axis powers, and came into being half a year after the capitulation of Germany, so it had served its purpose already before being founded, and is, since that time, purposeless.

  53. James Schrumpf says:
    April 16, 2014 at 4:52 am
    “For myself, whenever I post anywhere on the topic of “climate change,” I always end with “Don’t believe me, go look for yourselves. The four official data sets [names them] are all available on line.”

    I don’t know if it helps, but at least it keeps my posts from just being unsupported assertions, like so much of of this conversation becomes.”

    That’s just sweet, James, but as we are on WUWT, any visitor who cares can easily use the Reference Pages rider above to see them, so it would be a bit redundant to constantly say that.

  54. Ron McCarley – I hope you don’t mind, I’m going to reblog your ‘Climate Alarmism Dictionary’ post. It made me chuckle a lot and helped me get through a particularly difficult day at work!

  55. As faras I can tel/recalll – all the IPCC reports have presented conjecture as certainty/fact. This,of course, is transmitted over to the SPM reports in an even further inflamed and alarmist manner….

  56. To Katabasis: I’m honored and pleased that you used my note. Thanks for letting me know about your blog.

Comments are closed.