More reax to Lewis and Crok: What the IPCC Knew But Didn’t Tell Us

Climate Insensitivity: What the IPCC Knew But Didn’t Tell Us

By Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger

In a remarkable example of scientific malfeasance, it has become apparent that the IPCC knew a lot more than it revealed in its 2013 climate compendium about how low the earth’s climate sensitivity is likely to be.

The importance of this revelation cannot be overstated. If the UN had played it straight, the “urgency” of global warming would have evaporated, but, recognizing that this might cause problems, they preferred to mislead the world’s policymakers.

Strong words? Judge for yourself. 

The report Oversensitive—how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming,” was released today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)—a U.K. think-tank which is “concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated” regarding climate change (disclosure: our Dick Lindzen is a member of the GWPF Academic Advisory Council).

The new GWPF report concluded:

We believe that, due largely to the constraints the climate model-orientated IPCC process imposed, the Fifth Assessment Report failed to provide an adequate assessment of climate sensitivity – either ECS [equilibrium climate sensitivity] or TCR [transient climate response] – arguably the most important parameters in the climate discussion. In particular, it did not draw out the divergence that has emerged between ECS and TCR estimates based on the best observational evidence and those embodied in GCMs. Policymakers have thus been inadequately informed about the state of the science.

The study was authored by Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok. Crok is a freelance science writer from The Netherlands and Lewis, an independent climate scientist, was an author on two recent important papers regarding the determination of the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—that is, how much the earth’s average surface temperature will rise as a result of a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide.

The earth’s climate sensitivity is the most important climate factor in determining how much global warming will result from our greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from burning of fossil fuels to produce, reliable, cheap energy). But, the problem is, is that we don’t know what the value of the climate sensitivity is—this makes projections of future climate change–how should we say this?–a bit speculative.

Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of recent scientific research aimed at gaining a better understanding of what the climate sensitivity may be. We have detailed much of this research in our ongoing series of articles highlighting new findings on the topic. Collectively, the new research indicates an ECS value a bit below 2°C. The latest in our series is here.

But in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) finalized this past January, the IPCC gave short shrift to the major implication of this collection of new research results—that the climate sensitivity is much lower than what the IPCC assessed it to be in its collection of previous assessment reports (issued every 6-7 years) and that the rate of climate change is going to be much less.

For example, formerly, in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), released in 2007, the IPCC had this to say regarding the equilibrium climate sensitivity:

It [the equilibrium climate sensitivity] is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantial higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values. [emphasis in original]

In its new AR5, the IPCC wrote this:

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. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. [emphasis in original]

And IPCC AR5 footnote 16 states:

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.

So, facing mounting scientific for a substantially lower climate sensitivity, the best the IPCC could bring itself to do was to reduce the low end of its “likely” range by one-half degree, refuse to put a value on its best guess, and still cling to its high end number. Big deal.

The reason that the IPCC could only make these meager changes was that the collection of climate models that the IPCC employs to make the bulk of its projections of future climate change (and future climate change impacts) has an average ECS value of 3.2°C.  The IPCC couldn’t very well conclude from the scientific evidence that the real value was somewhere south of 2°C—if it were to do so, it would invalidate the climate models and, for that matter the meat of its entire report (that is, its climate change projections).

We described the situation the IPCC faced last summer (prior to releasing the final copy of the AR5) this way:

The IPCC has three options:

  1. Round-file the entire AR5 as it now stands and start again.
  2. Release the current AR5 with a statement that indicates that all the climate change and impacts described within are likely overestimated by around 50 percent, or
  3. Do nothing and mislead policymakers and the rest of the world.

We’re betting on door number 3.

As predicted, the IPCC chose option number 3.

The new GWPF report confirms, in detail, the IPCC’s choice and how it came to make it—by confusing the reader with a collection of evidence that was outdated, already disproven, based upon flimsy assumptions, not directly applicable, or flat-out wrong.

Putting it nicely, Lewis and Crok describe the situation thus:

The AR5 authors might not have wanted to declare that some studies are better than others or to adjudicate between observational and model-based lines of evidence, but we believe that this is exactly what an assessment is all about: using expert knowledge to weigh different sources of evidence. In this section we present reasoned arguments for a different assessment to that in AR5.

Lewis and Crok go, in detail, through each climate sensitivity paper considered (and relied upon) by the IPCC and identify its shortcomings. At the end, they are left with a collection of five papers that, while still containing uncertainties, are built upon the most robust set of assumptions and measurements.

From those papers the Lewis and Crok conclude the following:

A new ‘best observational’ estimate of ECS can now be calculated by taking a simple average of the different observationally-based estimates….This gives a best estimate for ECS of 1.75°C and a likely range of about 1.3–2.4°C. However, recognizing that error and uncertainty may be greater than allowed for in the underlying studies, and will predominantly affect the upper of the range, we conservatively assess the likely range as 1.25–3.0°C.

Now compare these figures with those in AR4 and AR5….Our new ‘best observational’ ECS estimate of 1.75°C is more than 40% lower than both the best estimate in AR4 of 3°C and the 3.2°C average of GCMs used in AR5. At least as importantly, the top of the likely range for ECS of 3.0°C is a third lower than that given in AR5 (4.5°C) – even after making it much more conservative than is implied by averaging the ranges for each of the observational estimates.

And as to what this means about the IPCC global warming projections, Lewis and Crok write:

The [climate models] overestimate future warming by 1.7–2 times relative to an estimate based on the best observational evidence.

This is a powerful and important conclusion.

We recommend that you read the full report. Not only is it a comprehendible and comprehensive description of the current science as it relates to the climate sensitivity, but it is an illumination of how the IPCC process does, or rather doesn’t, work.

The Obama Administration and its EPA will ignore this reality at their peril.


Global Science Report is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Redistribution of wealth is the goal.
Facts, truth, data, science, honesty, honor have nothing to do with the U.N. or any of the Climate Change, Global Warming, CO2 kills cult.
Low information voters are the enableing force they use.
Keep up the pressure, the lies are now in fail mode.

Bruce Cobb

They lied, in other words. Quelle surprise.

Peter Miller

The Global Warming Industry has so many vested interests that there would be mass unemployment of climate scientists and falling energy prices if this paper was acted on.
Anyone think either of those are a bad thing? Problem is the GWI has absolutely no interest in any good news on climate, only bad news and catastrophic prophecies are allowed.


“The Obama Administration and the EPA will ignore this reality” with an ad hominem attack if they are pressed to comment at all. As far as “peril” goes, they’ve already taken their collective boat over the waterfall, now it just boils down to personal attacks on anyone who publicly notices.


Does this mean there are apologies coming from Obama, Kerry, and John Holdren to the masses of science-minded Americans? I think not. They are just as intransigent as Putin in their own way.

Theo Goodwin

Thanks to Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger for this wonderful report. Thanks to Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok for their first-rate science. Thanks to WUWT for serving as the most important protector of scientific integrity in these times.
Watch the Alarmists run for cover (advanced computer aided obfuscation).

Henry Bowman

The Obama Administration and its EPA will ignore this reality at their peril.

Seems to me that the Obama Admin and its EPA will ignore this reality at our peril rather than theirs.

Henry Galt.

On our planet, in our atmosphere, due to CO² acting alone?
ECS due to 2xCO²(11ppmv ==> 22ppmv) some warming.
ECS due to 2xCO²(22ppmv ==> 44ppmv) maybe a little bit more warming. Maybe.
ECS due to 2xCO²(280ppmv ==> 560ppmv) will be ≤ 0.000°C à la Ferenc Miskolczi.
Like I said at BH – There is a much greater chance that aliens will land and point this out than there is that the vested, wilfully ignorant jokers will ‘fess up while they still breathe.

Of some note on a hearing in Washington D.C. March 12, 2014:
Joint hearing of both these two subcommittees of the Committee of Science and Energy.
Energy and Environment subcommittees.
Hearing on the science of Capture and Storage of CO2 and the understanding of the EPA rules on this.
Sub committee head of the Energy sub,,,, Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) 202-225-2311
Sub committee head of the Environment Committee sub.. David Schweikert (R-AZ)
Ralph Hall is the Chairman Emeritus of the full committee and his office will help for sure as he knows what is going on for sure. 90 years old but does know a thing or two , carrier landing Navy air to air conbat pilot WW-II. He is the most Sr. member of the House of Rep.’s.
Need to try to get this info into the hands of the people who work for these three and try to get this info into the Congressional Record at the hearing.


If the IPCC had need around since the 1500’s or so, the earth would still be considered flat!

IPCC scientists have got themselves caught in a trap.
– humans may be warming the climate
– humans are probably warming the climate
– humans are likely warming the climate and it is dangerous
– humans are almost certainly warming the climate fast and it is likely catastrophic
In AR5 they are now collectively unable to retreat from positions they have adopted previously. They have over-hyped the message and now fear that they are simply wrong. They do not have the scientific honesty to accept the observational evidence clearly showing that they have very over-estimated warming by about a factor of 2.
It is a scientific disgrace !


“The Obama Administration and its EPA will ignore this reality at their peril.”
I boldly predict they’re going to go ahead and ignore it anyway.

Barbara Skolaut

“The Obama Administration and its EPA will ignore this reality at their peril.”
Bambi and the EPA will ignore this reality at OUR peril.
And they WILL ignore it. >:-(

Gail Combs

Peter Miller says: @ March 6, 2014 at 9:38 am
The Global Warming Industry has so many vested interests that there would be mass unemployment of climate scientists and falling energy prices if this paper was acted on.
Not to mention a partial collapse of the stock market.
But not to worry Al Gore has already moved out of Green Slime™ Energy

…[I]f Al Gore has any message for investors today, it might very well be this: “Stay the hell away from alternative energy!”
Not that he would say so. At least out loud…..
his portfolio is top-heavy in high-tech, medical instruments, and even more pedestrian investments in companies such as Amazon (AMZN_), eBay (EBAY_), Colgate Palmolive (CL_), Nielsen (NLSN_), Strayer University (STRA_), and Qualcomm (QCOM_).
He is also big in China, with stakes in a big Chinese travel agency, CTrip, and China’s largest medical equipment manufacturer, Mindray Medical.
And if you want a piece of the natural gas pipeline game — heavily dependent on the environmentally suspect fracking — you can find that in Gore’s portfolio as well with Quanta Services (PWR_).
Generation Investment even had a piece of Staples (SPLS_) at one point — but that was before anyone realized that was Mitt Romney’s love child.
Not an Apple (AAPL_) to be found, despite the fact that Gore sits on its board of directors…. [snicker]

Best news I have heard in a LOOoooong while.
Note that one of the recent comments mentioned the newest ‘Politically Correct’ term is now Abrupt Climate Change. As NOAA has said no one knows what causes D-O and Bond events so that is probably what CAGW will morph in to (a bone for Academia) as Gore and his fellow scammers walk away with their takings from this scam and Obama and company leave a shambles to be blamed on the next president (No doubt a Republican fall guy.)


fobdangerclose says:Redistribution of wealth is the goal.
Oh, it’s always about wealth redistribution, but it won’t be some kind of Robin Hood , giving to the worlds poor and needy. The unaccountable $100bn slush fund is not about socialist equality, it is a recipe for corruption on a scale never yet seen.

Brian H

Still a factor of about 5 too high. CO2 dwell time in atmosphere is only about 5 yrs., not 1000. Unfortunately.

Larry Ledwick

It took 20+ years for everyone to jump on this bandwagon it will take about that long for folks to figure out the ride will only get bumpier and jump off. A few will wait too long and will not get off until the wagon leaves the road and crashes into a tree.
Lots of businesses and individuals have melded an assumption of AGW into long term business and personal plans. They even if they see the writing on the wall know what will happen if everyone rushes to the exit at the same time. So the smarter ones will quietly edge toward the door while giving lip service toward the dogma until they safely dump AGW related investments and turn company business plans toward another revenue stream.
It will be the sincere believer in the street that will be the last to know a problem exists and they will get the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute when some trigger event makes the house of cards collapse.
The biggest casualties will be all the young idealistic kids who are now taking degrees in trade schools for wind energy careers and environmental studies etc. When they realize that their training is next to useless and they cannot find a job as the alternate energy industry does a slow implosion.


I really do wonder what ‘observational evidence’ from the real world points to a ‘climate sensitivity’ of 1.25 – 3.0 degrees … Could it perchance all be based on the assumption that some or all of the observed global warming during a certain period of time is caused by the rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration? Meaning, on a purely circular argument?

Russell Johnson

Right now we are in the talking phase of climate change, government leaders are lying in concert with the UN. Governments and bureaucrats have added laws and regulations for citizens and corporations to follow. The faster this lie. crumbles the harder the edge will become. Resistance to this foolhardy pogrom is everything.


Essentially the IPCC have moved from a IPCC AR4 statement:
We are 50% certain the next coin flip will be heads
To a IPCC AR5 probability statement:
We are 100% certain the next coin flip will be heads or tails


The day the IPCC is forced to declare a false alarm draws nearer with each report. If the hiatus continues then the next report will make interesting reading.


An unusually honest article today in the UK Guardian, under Environment-Climate Change is titled “Not even climate change will kill off capitalism.” What is remarkable about this article is that it discusses nothing about climate change itself, but treats the issue as simply a tool in the larger goal, defeating capitalism. It bemoans the possibility that capitalism may survive the onslaught of environmentalism and may even continue to thrive. It suggests that other tools may be needed.
What struck me about the article is how frank it was that the goal is defeat of capitalism and that climate change is just a tool. There is no discussion of the science whatsoever and the article makes clear that the science is secondary to the goal of defeating capitalism. If climate change doesn’t work then something else needs to be tried. No clearer revelation of the underlying agenda behind warming alarmists could be made by even the most critical of observers.

Janice Moore

If the IPCC can be proven to have the intent, i.e., the mens rea, necessary for fraud, a.k.a., a l1e,
all who:
1) reasonably relied
2 on those l1es
3) to their detriment
are owed just compensation for their damage.
Given: “IPCC AR5 probability statement:
We are 100% certain the next coin flip will be heads or tails
(nicely restated by Onion at 11:20am)
Thus, any reliance on the IPCC’s speculations is NOT reasonable.
Therefore, the culpability shifts
to the government officials who clearly DO have a legal duty to not mislead the public. Not doing due diligence or acting negligently (i.e., not acting as a reasonably prudent official would) or acting with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the facts upon which they rely (i.e., intending the carelessness, but not any particular effect of those acts) makes the government officials liable for damages caused by their malfeasance.
While those officials may successfully argue some sort of Sovereign Immunity defense for negligence, intent should be easy to show, especially given the fact that
many of those government officials are not only Envirostalinsts, but also Enviroprofiteers.
The handwriting has been on the wall for several years, now. And that handwriting was not written in pencil… . Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Ken in Kelowna

I believe the IPCC should engage the climate modelers to have a thorough look at the radiation now occuring in parts of the Pacific ocean due to leakage from the Fukishima reactors. Trace amounts in the parts per billion range are showing up. It would take about a thousand times higher concentration to become a health concern, and we all know the traces will dissipate. However, the IPCC modelers could demonstrate that since the radiation was almost nill 4 years ago, and has grown to measurable trace amounts today, that in 10 years it will most certainly be much higher (high confidence). IPCC could extrapolate that 100 years the Pacific will be highly radioactive (high confidence), and in 1,000 years will be a toxic sludge pool. Someday the IPCC modelers and reality should have a meeting.

Matthew R Marler

In a remarkable example of scientific malfeasance, it has become apparent that the IPCC knew a lot more than it revealed in its 2013 climate compendium about how low the earth’s climate sensitivity is likely to be.
Lewis and Crok do not dispute the scientific reviews, but only the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM.) The SPM expressed a political judgment.

Matthew R Marler

Oh, sorry. I meant to kill that last comment, not post it.


Gail mentioned the term “abrupt climate change.” How’s this quote from Mr. Trenberth for abrupt:
Forecasters expect El Nino ocean warming this year, may provide relief for US weather woes
“Trenberth said this El Nino may even push the globe out of a decade-long slowdown in temperature increase, “so suddenly global warming kicks into a whole new level.”


Given the absence of measureable temperature increase in the atmosphere or upper ocean in the last 10+ years in the face of continuing rise in atmospheric CO2, it seem to me that the “measured” sensitivity to CO2 must include “zero” as a lower limit.
The Null Hypothesis for CO2-force global warming is reasonably phrased as “there is no measureable increase in global temperatures as a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2”. So far, this Null Hypothesis remains at least “not disproven” based on measurements of the real world.
That is contrary to the failed predictions of the great mass of climate models of the 1980’s and 90’s which were used to gin up the current crisis. They have been disproven by measurement in the real world. Indeed, this is perhaps the only part of the science of climatology that ought to be considered settled.
It still seems likely that there will be some global warming induced by rising CO2, but as the sensitivity gets nearer to zero, the harder it will be to tease out this effect from the natural variability of our climate. This is the situation we seem to be in now.


So much for headless chickens prince chuck!

but gore did a documentary with sexy graphics so the co2 deathstar coming to kill us has got to be true because its a better movie. This they would say is just quibbling and nit picking about minor numbers 🙂 anyway deindustrialisation is ‘the right thing to do’.
until a counter documentary is made with sexy graphics it won’t penetrate the publicosphere


get yer butt orientatificated and face the mounting scientific! wanna sound real orcademic, here.


The Obama administration/ EPA is full of wackadoodle watermelon zealots. Of ccourse . They will ignore this.


Sorry but I just gotta…

Gail Combs

Janice Moore,
I was under the impression you have some knowledge of US law.
Given people have been forced to have smart meters or get their electric cut off and given the closing of coal plants link will cause electric rates to as Obama put it “ necessarily skyrocket.” would a group of citizens have ‘Standing’ to sue the former EPA officials like John C. Beale, Lisa Jackson and perhaps those helping Greenpeace and the Sierra Club rig court cases among others (like Hansen)?
I really really would like to see some ERRrrrdragged in to court.


“and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)”
This is an oxymoron; a grammatical absurdity. If the words “very unlikely” are not a statement of high confidence, then the words mean nothing.

Curious George

Don’t worry about a peril to the administration. A government’s reputation is worth more than any taxpayer’s money.

Janice Moore

“… there is no measurable increase in global temperatures as a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2″. So far, this Null Hypothesis remains at least “not disproven”… .”
Kwinterkorn at 12:14pm
And when you factor in that the % of atmospheric CO2 which is human CO2 emissions is:
1) tiny (.04 percent); and
2) EASILY overwhelmed by a magnitude of 2 by the net CO2 of natural sources and sinks,
any speculated effect of HUMAN CO2 is almost certainly going to be ZERO.

Gail Combs

Patrick says: @ March 6, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Wishful thinking.
He must be getting a bit nervous since He is close to 70. Don’t want to lose all that cushy money and awards and limelight now do we?
According to WIKI: Trenberth has “.. made significant contributions[3] to research into El Niño-Southern Oscillation….” I am sure the rest of the team is hoping he will pull an El Niño rabbit out of his… hat. Bob Tisdale must really chap his rear.

Janice Moore

Hi, Gail,
Well, lol, so you WERE “under the impression {I} have some knowledge of US law” … until you read what I wrote today, heh, heh. (smile). Good, well-informed, worthwhile, question (at 12:50pm).
Re: Standing
Just a very incomplete and vague (sorry, I’m about to leave and wanted to answer quickly AND I don’t have the cites memorized, so, would have to take quite some time to look it all up) answer:
Generally, if the plaintiffs (whoever they are) can prove that they were:
1) injured
2) not due to their own fault (e.g., failing to mitigate)
3) that injury was proximately caused by the defendant (former EPA officials, here)’s negligence (or other malfeasance) and
4) they do not have a good sovereign immunity (or reliance on the best science at the time – type defense) defense
then, YES, a group of injured (could be on behalf of estate of their dead from hypothermia grandma — hard to prove causation of death was “but for” the coal regs., though…) U.S. citizens could sue, here.
Please forgive my almost useless answer, Gail. I wanted to answer AT ALL, and, knowing what I do of the law (including the Rules of Professional Responsibility)… I could not say more … . Someone who knows less about the law might say more… .
Hopefully, someone who knows and has the time to give you a competent answer will reply. In fact, to help you out there, I’ll write this:
Hope THAT, at least, helps. #(:))
btw: your post on the EPA at SCOTUS thread re: Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) shows that YOU are well-versed in American jurisprudence. That case was, imo, wrongly decided and it would be the severing of a giant, economy-enervating, tumor, for it to be overruled by SCOTUS. Oh, that would definitely, be “Happy days are here again.” Please, dear God, bring that question presented before the court! (and have them rule correctly, this time…).
Thanks again for all your fine, thoughtful, posts on WUWT. You add immense value to this site. And, now, I REALLY have to run so — whoopee, no proofreading, just … “hit post comment and go!”
Your WUWT fan and pal,

John Peter

As stated over at Ed Hawkins, as a layman I have my own calculation of ECS based on a temperature increase of 0.8% since CO2 was at 280ppm in the atmosphere. It is now around 400ppm so the increase is around 43%. As CO2 temperature effect is considered to be logarithmic a reasonable projected temperature for a doubling of CO2 would be around 1.75C max . Taking the IPCC confidence that over half of the above mentioned temperature increase is caused by man made CO2 emissions, my estimate is 1% ECS based on a CO2 doubling. I am proud to find myself in company with such scientists as Professor Lindzen and Dr Spencer and that is without using a model. Even Mosher cannot argue I am using a model. I would say that anyone disagreeing with this projection must show an acceleration in increasing temperatures since pre industrial times and how do you do that in face of a “pause” now exceeding 17 years per RSS?

Eric H.

I wonder if in say, 50 years or so elementary children will be learning about how scientists once thought that CO2 was going to change the climate catastrophically. Kind of like we learned about spontaneous generation when I was a kid. Something about a cardboard box, a dirty shirt and grain spontaneously produced mice…

Robert of Ottawa

Given the Obama admin’s track records, if it continues to push AGW and anti-civilization policies, start seeing certain scientists’ funds disappear and the occasional tax audit.

Robert of Ottawa

Gail Combs: … or a rabbit out of his assets.

Mead R.

[snip – no valid email address, required by policy to comment here].
MX record about exists.
Connection succeeded to SMTP.
220 ESMTP k18si7129490wjw.99 – gsmtp
250 at your service
=250 2.1.0 OK k18si7129490wjw.99 – gsmtp
=550-5.1.1 The email account that you tried to reach does not exist.
Nice try, – but DA doesn’t get a pass here with fake emails – Anthony]

Cynical Scientst

It is difficult to publish low ball estimates of ECS and TCR in the current political environment. I suspect that studies which might give low values have either self censored or not been published. Hence I regard the lower bound in the published literature as being far too high. Indeed I tend to think it makes a more likely upper bound. My own personal subjective assessment is that TCR is somewhere in the range 0.3 to 1.3. And yes that implies I think feedback is most likely negative.
ECS is much more problematic as you are comparing to what “would have happened”. It could be large if the extra CO2 manages to delay the next onset of glaciation in the current ice age. But if that happens I really don’t think we’ll mind.


This is still a meaningless metric as its assumes the warming is caused by CO2 increase, It can’t explain the pause and is still based on flawed models that don’t have the correct climate inputs and constraints.


The agw crowd are nothing but crooks. Mann and the rest of the bunch need to be perp walked before the public.

Mead R.

Why didn’t Lewis & Crok submit their science for peer review? Frankly, it looks like they’re trying to avoid it. Disappointing, because more is needed.


There must be more scientists apart from Lewis and Crok who are aware of the deceit, misrepresentation and reluctance to fess up from the IPCC, which discredits their contributions.
Isn’t it time to challenge the IPCC? These deceits are not unfortunate choices of words, they appear to be deliberate attempts to mislead. Are those who contributed prepared to remain complicit in this?
“All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing…” Edmund Burke.

Gail Combs

Mead R. says: @ March 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Why didn’t Lewis & Crok submit their science for peer review? Frankly, it looks like they’re trying to avoid it. Disappointing, because more is needed.
Obama has ~ 2 years to get his de-industrialization of the USA pushed through. Mid-term elections come up in November so we need this ammunition ASAP.