IPCC Fails To Come Clean Over Global Temperature Standstill

IPCC’s Diversion Tactics Criticised

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is criticising the IPCC for its deliberate attempt to obscure the reality of an ongoing temperature standstill and its failure to come clean about the failure of its models.

The IPCC has decided to discount the global warming standstill since 1997 as irrelevant and has deleted from its final document its original acknowledgement (in its 7 June draft) that climate models have failed to ’reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.’

Not only has the IPCC failed to predict the ongoing temperature standstill, its climate models actually predicted accelerated warming due to the increase of CO2 emissions.

Survey: Global temperature changes

© Spiegel Online

Instead of acknowledging empirical facts and growing uncertainties, the IPCC is trying to divert attention from these key issues by claiming increased certainty about the reliability of climate models and their outputs.

“Today the IPCC has taken a huge gamble that will soon determine whether it is still fit for purpose. Unless global temperature will begin to rise again in the next few years, the IPCC is very likely going to suffer an existential blow to its credibility,” said Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 27, 2013 10:00 am

I must say, anyone who cannot see this is agenda driven at this point simply isnt paying attention or is dishonest with themselves or others. This is NOT how science is supposed to work!

Mike Smith
September 27, 2013 10:00 am

Suffer a blow to its credibility?
If the IPCC could move the earth into a new orbit a few million miles closer to the sun, they would do it. Any observed warming would be trumpeted as proof of the accuracy of the models they worship.
We’re looking as something far, far more sinister than credibility here!

Bruce Cobb
September 27, 2013 10:01 am

What credibility? They never had any to begin with.

September 27, 2013 10:01 am

If temperature fall or don’t rise for the next five years, climate science might well destroy the entire scientific and academic community.Its entire reputation is now at state at the moment. And i hope ALL lecturers and academic professionals realise this. I’m amazed the real hard practical physicics and engineers haven’t come out against this crap FAR FAR harder.
If any form of warming fails to occur for the next 5 years. The pitch forks will be out.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
September 27, 2013 10:02 am

This puts the IPCC on a par with SkS and Grist for Kool-Aid consumption. No, wait…They’ve been like that since the get-go, beginning with Wirth’s Air Conditioner Circus.

September 27, 2013 10:08 am

Models vs. observations
Nota Bene: Climate models vs actual climate
Overestimating global warming over the past 20 years

Minnesota Oly
September 27, 2013 10:09 am

What if credible scientists who recognize and can demonstrate what the IPCC is and has done, went onto CNN, BBC, NYT and other sites and responded via their blogs, en masse, refuting and pointing to the glaring inaccuracies. 1 scientist by himself may seem to be a lone denialist in a sea of believers. 100 scientists refuting the report and underlying “story” each with a credible purpose would put a lie to this crap.
Effectively, WUWT postings in BBC, CNN, NYT, WSJ, Telegraph, WAPO. Hard to ignore, hard to refute.

September 27, 2013 10:10 am

The IPCC has already serious credibility issues – this report will simply compound them. However, in the current economic climate, with some sense of delicate recovery underway, I think (I hope!)the IPCC and the alarmist recommendations will still be on the backburner in terms of political will and actual imposition/enforcement thereof.
In the meantime, if cooling (or non-warming, whichever way you want to describe it) continues, the credibility drops further. Right now, the best we can hope for is that governments decide to keep carbon taxation ‘on hold’ – or a business as usual approach, and see what comes out in the wash.
The skeptics cannot claim there is enough evidence to completely dismiss AGW, but the IPCC (despite their proclamations) cannot claim there is enough evidence to confirm it either.
Although many skeptics believe (with good reason) that significant AGW is dead – we cannot prove it. The way I see it – is to let the IPCC hang itself, as, if we are correct – they will surely do after this latest disemmination of bulldust ‘science’. They had the chance to come clean and clear the decks of the bulldust, but they didn’t, they just added another thick layer on top. ‘SS AGW’ is overloaded with BS and ready to capsize…….

September 27, 2013 10:13 am

Why won’t the IPCC publish their version of the ‘science’ that proves CO2 gas ‘traps heat’ and warms the atmosphere when the CO2 is already too warm to absorb any radiation from the surface, even from desert regions reaching 50C in high summer? CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly radiating to the surface but that radiation won’t warm anything unless it is colder than -79C.
The claim is CO2 slows the transfer of heat energy from the surface to space. How? Please explain in detail. All the numbers please. Non of this ‘most likely’ garbage.

John West
September 27, 2013 10:19 am

A reminder as to one of the reasons why “the pause” is important:
Back in 2007 Norman Page asks in comments @ RC:
“what year would you reconsider the CO2 – Warming paradigm if the CRU Global annual mean temperature is cooler than 2005 – 2009…?”
Gavin Schmidt answers:
“You need a greater than a decade non-trend that is significantly different from projections. [0.2 – 0.3 deg/decade]”
At that time it was outside the paradigm for there to be a decade without a warming trend. Now that we’re at a decade and half they’ve shifted the paradigm to accommodate the lack of warming as if they always expected this sort of thing to happen and it doesn’t change a thing. But something has changed; their paradigm has shifted in the “skeptical” direction (they’ll deny that). Consider one of the early skeptical arguments to catastrophic warming: the ocean is a massive heat sink that will moderate the warming. Here we are now with moderated warming and suddenly the past skeptic position is the alarmist position and they won’t even admit we were right. Oh no, they saw this coming all along while calling us “deniers” for predicting exactly what has happened. WUWT?
The paradigm has shifted towards lower sensitivity as well, again they can’t bring themselves to say skeptics were right.
Starting to look like a pattern to me.

Jim B
September 27, 2013 10:19 am

It took over 40 years for Piltdown man to be exposed and that one was obvious. People still think DDT will kill you despite zero evidence, and tons of evidence to the contrary. Silent Spring was written in 1962 (51 years ago) .
CAGW will not go away until everyone who made a buck on it is dead of old age, sorry to burst your bubble on this one, even if the temperature starts to go down, it will make no difference to those driving the agenda. It really only started in the 80’s we have another 20 years to go.

September 27, 2013 10:22 am

It seems sensible to copy to here a post I made on another thread. It is as follows.
Most attention is likely to be focused on IPCC AR5 statements about the “hiatus”.
Some may notice the fall-back from the previous assertion of 2°C maximum permissible global warming to now being 2.5°C and the new obfuscation of the start date of that warming.
But, in my opinion, by far the most egregious IPCC AR5 statement is the change to 30-year periods for climate assessment. This is Orwellian historical revision which hides the decline in model credibility, evades the issue of the “hiatus”, and – very, very importantly – it hides the demonstrable fact IPCC understanding of climate change in its previous (i.e. AR4) Report is plain wrong.
The adoption of the 30-year period is a severe change by the IPCC; for example, in 1994 the IPCC used 4-year periods to compare changes in hurricane frequency.
Very importantly, the AR4 made a 20-year prediction (n.b. PREDICTION and not a projection) based on its understanding of existing heat in the climate system. This prediction was that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.
This goes to the heart of the IPCC understandings of climate, the “hiatus”, and the performance of the models because NONE of that “committed warming” has happened although it was stated as being confidently predicted for the 20-year period from 2000 to 2020.
By adopting the 30-year period for climate assessment the IPCC is saying its understandings as stated in its previous Report (AR4) are plain wrong. And if those errors of understanding are not explicitly corrected in the AR5 then there is reason to accept that the IPCC’s understanding of climate are still plain wrong.
The pertinent passage in the AR4 is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
It says there

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.


September 27, 2013 10:59 am

In any other scientific organisation the temperature standstill since 1997 would have been important and addressed. The IPCC is fundamentally about its temperature projections / scenarios. OOOOOPS! I forgot, the IPCC is not a scientific organisation but an inter-governmental panel set up to look at the effects of man-made climate change – which it takes as given. And that’s why is projections keep failing.

Brian H
September 27, 2013 11:21 am

The expert consensus is that they’re 95% sure the experts are full of it.

Theo Goodwin
September 27, 2013 12:14 pm

richardscourtney says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:22 am
Spot on! The IPCC should be “called out” on these matters by everyone who has a “bully pulpit.”
Thanks again for your excellent work.

September 27, 2013 1:13 pm

This has a good side… now millions upon millions of people can actually see with their own eyes that the I.P.C.C. is just spewing pure propaganda.

September 27, 2013 1:16 pm

John West: we don’t have a decade with a trend significantly below 0.2C/decade ; the trend lines for most global data sets have a positive central estimate, and 95% confidence intervals on all of them include 0.2C/decade. The central estimate is below 0.2C/decade, and the confidence intervals include zero, which is why there’s talk of a hiatus period.

September 27, 2013 3:03 pm

There is an interesting post at:
link to another one in the blog:
Astonishing ability to reconstruct 20th century SSTs using models invoking oceanic modulators (PDO + AMO) plus solar influences.
In the blog comments below, a link between solar outputs, cloudiness and La Nina/El Nino is postulated to drive up to a 1000 mile shift in climatic zones through millenial cycles. The bloggers claim that carbon dioxide is likely to influence such things by no more than a mile.
I think WUWT heavyweights should examine these arguments and see whether they can be refuted or, more importantly, tested through experiment.
This may become the death knell to IPCC theories.
If it is, the sooner it is tested rigorouly and gains acceptance, the better.

September 27, 2013 3:04 pm

Richard111 says:
Why won’t the IPCC publish their version of the ‘science’ that proves CO2 gas ‘traps heat’ and warms the atmosphere when the CO2 is already too warm to absorb any radiation from the surface, even from desert regions reaching 50C in high summer? CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly radiating to the surface but that radiation won’t warm anything unless it is colder than -79C.

Probably because the IPCC doesn’t see its job as correcting physics misconceptions. We have physics textbooks for that.
Objects above 0K radiate. They radiate in all directions. Hot objects radiate more. All objects can absorb whether hot or cold. Hot objects heat cold ones because more heat moves from the hot object to the cold one than moves in the other direction. Heat transfer goes in both directions, but at different rates. Think of a highway with much more traffic in one direction than the other.
You seem to think that radiation somehow “knows” the temperature of the object it came from and bounces off all objects that are hotter. Or maybe you think heat transfer is arranged over some sort of cosmic telephone where the objects talk to each other and agree to send heat only in the direction of hot to cold.

Theo Goodwin
September 27, 2013 8:34 pm

rtj1211 says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Thanks for the link, rtj. Dr. Spencer writes:
“The IPCC has traditionally maintained that El Nino and La Nina activity effectively cancel each other out over time and so ENSO can’t cause multi-decadal time scale warming or cooling. Some of us think this is nonsense, since we know that there are ~30 year periods when El Ninos are stronger, then ~30 year periods when La Nina is stronger.”
Forever, it seems, I have been harping on the IPCC’s blindness to empirical matters. Here, I would like to emphasize just one point. When claiming that natural variability in ENSO must cancel to zero, Alarmists are reasoning top-down from their “radiation-only” theory of warming. Because ENSO cannot create energy, its variations must sum to zero over a long enough time period. That top-down reasoning is their excuse for refusing to look at the facts. As Spencer says, there are 30 year periods of El Nino strength followed by thirty year periods of La Nina strength. Alarmists refuse to look at their own evidence, the temperature records for ENSO. That is anti-empiricism, the hallmark of Alarmists.

September 28, 2013 2:17 am

PDO (or rather PMO,Pacific Multi-decadal Oscillation) phases don’t even cancel on multidecadal timescales such as from one positive phase to the next.
There appears to have been upward ‘stepping’ during the recovery from the LIA and I suspect there would have been downward ‘stepping’ from MWP to LIA.

September 28, 2013 2:20 am

rt1211 said:
“In the blog comments below, a link between solar outputs, cloudiness and La Nina/El Nino is postulated to drive up to a 1000 mile shift in climatic zones through millenial cycles. The bloggers claim that carbon dioxide is likely to influence such things by no more than a mile.”
That would be me.
“I think WUWT heavyweights should examine these arguments and see whether they can be refuted or, more importantly, tested through experiment.
This may become the death knell to IPCC theories.”
That would be nice.

Dave Kamakaris
September 28, 2013 7:54 am

As a middle school science teacher with BS and MS degrees in Geology, this sickens me. Now, because of Al Gore, the IPCC, Michael Mann, and all their sycophants, scientists now have the same reputation as attorneys and politicians. I’ll be damned if I’ll play along, and I stake my credibility and reputation on telling the truth about the climate to my students. And in case you’re wondering how I feel, the truth and this rag of a report the IPCC just published could not be more diametrically opposed to each other.

Tatonka Chesli
September 28, 2013 10:34 am

To quote ManBearPig from another thread,
The Mannopause?

September 28, 2013 10:53 am

This should come as no surprise.. If it was actual science it would have self regulated itself 10 years ago, but it didn’t.. Far to many rent seekers and political malcontents co opted into this left wing lollapalooza, called global warming..
Best thing us mere mortals can hope for is another world war or some other fashionable political trend drawing the morons off into another direction..

Tatonka Chesli
September 28, 2013 11:40 am

Another big contradiction is this: they limit both natural “forcing” and “variation” to 0.1 degree in half a century – astonishing hubris for them to go on record with this derisory figure. But at the same time they invoke decadal variations to account for the current “Mannopause” of static temperatures.
From this figure:
the divergence between current temperature and the 2007 IPCC projection is already 0.3 degrees!

September 28, 2013 11:44 am

[Please do not label skeptics as “climate deniers”. It violates written site Policy. Thank you. — mod.]

September 28, 2013 1:07 pm

JustAnotherPoster says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:01 am
Ain’t it the truth. Pride goeth before a fall, and the massive hubris of the climate alarmists is going to impact with an Earth shattering Ka-Boom!
Kev-in-Uk says:
September 27, 2013 at 10:10 am
“The skeptics cannot claim there is enough evidence to completely dismiss AGW…”
Sure we can. I claim it. The problem is in getting the claim accepted. For that, we are almost surely going to need Providence to kick in and give us some substantial cooling in direct and undeniable contradiction to the AGW advocates’ position.
cynical_scientist says:
September 27, 2013 at 3:04 pm
“You seem to think that radiation somehow “knows” the temperature of the object it came from and bounces off all objects that are hotter.”
While not necessarily or fully agreeing with Richard111’s position, I must point out that if the relevant energy states are already occupied, that is precisely what will happen.

Chad Wozniak
September 29, 2013 11:10 am

I would respectfully disagree that we can’t prove AGW is false. There are 4,500 years of historical records documenting changes in the climate that are absolutely uncorrelated to CO2, starting with ancient Egypt, continuing with the Hittite-Minoan-Mycenean warm period, the Roman Climate Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the modern period from 1850, which is now ending with the resumption of cooling and which never reached the maxima of prior warming periods. There is also ample evidence of periods in the past when ice ages occurred during period of high CO2 content in the atmosphere.
As for the recent warm period, it peaked in the 1930s and despite minor ups and downs since, even the temps of the 1990s did not match those of the 1930s, and now temps are much lower than in the 1930s. That’s 80 years of a net decline in temps despite a 40 percent increase in CO2.
It can be proven that any effect of CO2 or human activity on climate is statistically equivalent to zero, therefore, in a practical sense, there is no effect. Q.E.D.

September 30, 2013 10:54 pm

I have been doing some paleo research. I own some land in a karst area in Ky. I am digging a sinkhole with uninterupted sediments starting with the Holocene I am down past the terminal pleistocene. Looking at the sedimentology you can see seasons and individual weather events. You can see the results of events such as the hipsothermal climatic starting at about 8 KY it lasted approx 4000. Years it was more extreme than all the global warming predictions. Also the sangamonium interglacial prior to the last glacial maximum was so warm the arctic was ice free in the summer ant the tree line extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean and tropical species lived north of StLouis Mo. Alligators and parrots. Ok global warming alarmist wats up with that.

%d bloggers like this: