Brandon Shollenberger writes: I thought you might be interested to hear the final version of the IPCC AR5 WGII report has been published, and a number of changes were made between it and the Final Draft people have been using for the last seven months or so. The only way anyone can find them is by comparing the text in the two versions as the IPCC apparently does not disclose these changes.I wrote about some I found in a section of Chapter 10:
Consider, for instance, Figure 10-1. Here is the previous version (left) and the new version (right):
That it was redrawn to look better is fine. The problem is the data represented in the two figures are not the same. The diamond (representing an estimate published in the last five years) between 2 and 2.5 degrees has shifted almost to 3 degrees. Two points previously at 2.5 degrees have shifted left to 2.2 degrees. A new diamond was added at 3 degrees. A circle at three degrees and about 5%, which previously stood out, has vanished. The diamond at the far right side has shifted even farther right, going from just under five to just to under 5.5 while also dropping quite a bit. The diamond at the bottom has fallen as well, being lower by nearly one full point.
Not a single one of these changes was disclosed. We can verify them, however, by examining the tables provided for both figures. I’ve previously displayed the table for the first figure:
Here is the new version of the table (found in the IPCC Supplementary Material):
Every difference I highlighted in the figures can be confirmed in these tables. More differences can be found as well. For instance, we can see the estimate from Nordhaus 1994a was changed from -4.8 (-30.0 to 0.0) to -1.9 (median), -3.6 (mean) [-21 to 0.0]. This change is neither disclosed nor explained. Also unexplained is why only both the median and mean values are shown yet only the median value is displayed in the graph.
More here: http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/undisclosed-changes-in-the-ipcc-ar5-report/
But I imagine there may be others. It’s interesting because the section the changes I discuss are in was actually added after the last round of reviews (while the section immediately after it was rewritten). That means the material never underwent external review before being released in the “Final Draft,” and then it was secretly changed again before the official version.
If the IPCC will allow this to happen in one spot, who knows what else they might have allowed?
So, rather like this:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/andrew-cooper-ipcc-using-differing-graph-versions/
Seems as though they are at it at every possible stage in the process.
Both charts are a scandal BEFORE they change as well. The IPCC regularly ignores literature that does not well fit the agenda. There are ?S number then the IPCC uses. They ignore many recent papers. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Sensitivity
and here is a recent WUWT post…The Collection of Evidence for a Lower Climate Sensitivity Continues to Grow – now up to 14 papers lower than IPCC
Mods, for some reason I can no longer copy-shortcut a link to the heading of a WUWT post, nor can I put the title in the search and find a link.
Thanks for an interesting piece of research. It is well worth visiting the fuller post to which Brandon Shollenberger refers.
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/undisclosed-changes-in-the-ipcc-ar5-report/
How could the IPCC have made so many accidental mistakes in what was essentially a simple exercise of downloading data from published papers?
Well done.
I had to look-up the meaning of elicit, trying to make sense of “Expert elicitations,” I failed.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=elicit+define&pc=MOZI&form=MOZSBR
Thanks a little.
I use secure anonymized search engines and printed reference books, in this case W7NCD’61.
The FBI site has the best definition: Elicitation is a technique used to discreetly gather information. It is a conversation with a specific purpose: collect information that is not readily available and do so without raising suspicion that specific facts are being sought. It is usually non-threatening, easy to disguise, deniable, and effective. The conversation can be in person, over the phone, or in writing.
In short you ask seemingly innocuous questions or make such comments then pick over the responses to draw out ‘facts’ about the person or subject from the answers.
Con-men excel at the practice.
Google what is called the Reid Interrogation Technique.
This one really pretty easy to figure out. Get the US out of the UN, then get the UN out of the U.S. I think that it’s plenty enough apparent that the UN is corrupt beyond any credible attempt at recovery. The global economy is depressed past any historical example. Surely the money that the worlds economies, the U.S., the EU, industrialized Asia and the like can be better spent than providing imaginary employment for Ivy League political cronies.
I wish there was a FAV button, or a star to recommend posts.
Oh…wait…
😉
Here’s a star for you, Jimmaine: ☆
(Assuming WP can read the character.)
I never really thought of the UN as anti American until CAGW. Nor did I care much what they were doing. They seemed to be neutral. Over the past 15 or 16 years I have come to the conclusion that the US must get out of the UN and get the UN out of the US. It is made up of petty dictators and communists that have no interest in the welfare and being of the US or any western nation. It’s a convenient base of operation under diplomatic visas. The UN could go to some friendlier country like N. Korea or Afghanistan. Or in the case of Climate Change, they could relocate to North Dakota without the benefit of fossil fuels to keep them warm, or a jet airport, or cars. Have them walk or bicycle in. That’s what they want for us, lead by example.
Next year the UN will turn 70. It was founded with the stated goals of insuring world peace and human rights. It seems fair to ask after 70 years whether the UN has accomplished anything in insuring these goals. If the answer is “no,” then maybe it is time for the US to re-examine its participation, withdraw its membership and funding of the UN, and invite the organization to relocate to another country.
+10 you are spot on
And I know all about the arguments about if you’re not at the table then your on the table and the like. Frankly speaking, who cares. About all the UN accomplishes is deciding how to squander financial resource that the industrialized west provides. In the end a very elaborate money laundering mechanism.
Agreed. Waste of time and money…like so many other things our governments are pushing on us.
More Ethanol anyone?
It is obvious that changes have been made between the final draft and the final version. There is a record of these changes, and their reasons. This will be published in due time, if it hasn’t already. (I can’t find it at the moment, but then there is a lot of new material on the AR2 site.)
The changes are small. The quantitative conclusions hardly change, the qualitative conclusions not at all.
[Thank you for making the effort to reply here. Please note that many of our readers disagree strongly with your summary of the extent of the changes, and the claimed purpose of those changes. .mod]
REPLY: You are always welcome here, Dr. Tol. I can’t imagine the IPCC would be making changes in IPCC AR5 without documentation — and I don’t. Besides, it wouldn’t even make any sense, not with things the way they are. Thank you for your response. (Also note that there are more than a few of us lukewarmer RINOs who hang around here.) ~ Evan
This is an IPCC business as usual. The reasons for changes will be published in due time – or never. Reminiscent of Dr. Santner’s editing of 1995.
I’m just curious…how big of a change would have to take place for you to care?…and by care, I mean big enough that you’d think it wasn’t ethically right?
Jim: Just look at the two graphs. How hard do you need to look to see the difference?
Richard. Will the average reader actually have access to both graphs to compare? In most cases the published final version will be all that will be (allowed) to be seen.
This is a total failure in quality management. This is a formal International document all changes should be listed with the original and the changed version, the reason for the change, sign off from the lead authors of that section and the manager of that section, and from the technical writer that implemented the change. Changing documents on the fly may be the kind of thing that is par for the course in academia, but again this is a formal International document on which world changing decisions will be based. Failure to have high quality documentation governance that imposes a quality management system and configuration controls, at this level, is outright malfeasance.
The changes fail at all ethical levels. Once the document is signed off, any changes provoke claims of fraud.
There is no reasonable excuse to change the document without review.
Besides the ethics, with proven cases of data tampering such as Hide the decline and homogenising data from cooling to warming, it just makes the IPCC a political fool not a reputable tool for government use.
Just look at the name , Climate change.
The active noun is change not climate. So they are using climate as an excuse to change the world. That is how they continually excuse their deliberate errors.
If they were serious about climate they would be saying, changing climate.
One is free to make changes and amendments in a work or body of works. As long as it is documented in accessible form (and logged) so as to facilitate independent review I have no quarrel with it.
“The changes are small. The quantitative conclusions hardly change, the qualitative conclusions not at all.” Then what was the purpose of making them and without explanation? How many more were made?
You mean after Mann publishes his data?
Richard:
I have no experience communicating in the name of the UN; however, I do have significant experience communicating with Fortune 100 boards of directors (yes, I realize these are not equivalent). In my experience, quality and version controls are massive: you do not want powerful bodies making significant decisions using incorrect information or improperly reviewed data. Really, this is pretty basic blocking & tackling.
Since the UN fails to follow these (or more intensive) protocols, it is painful to watch anybody claim the resulting report is credible. Lets be clear: this is a political report, it is not an academic or scientific product.
Special note: I loved your conclusion that everything is probably ok because “The changes are small”. Given governments use this material to justify material modifications that negatively impact tens of trillions of global GDP and life and safety of hundreds of millions of very poor persons, as well as proposing trillions of new taxes, I strongly suspect your definition of small is different than mine.
Dr Tol;
I for one appriciate you responding here, can I ask you a simple question? do you as a member of the IPCC believe that you know enough about what is happening with our climate to recommend that governments need to act in a way that is clearly detrimental to peoples lives to advert some perceived disaster?
Sorry, but this wouldn’t even pass ISO 9000 procedure quality requirements, and if I did this in a procedure update that later caused a problem, the EPA would consider this unacceptable documentation.
Correcting spelling or redrawing a graph is one thing. Adding sections after review? Changing values on a table and graph after the Final Draft? Without a change log? This is unacceptable. Why is the IPCC held to such a low documentation standard?
…because they speak for god……
It’s interesting to note one of the undisclosed changes in the text was to remove this sentence:
It’s worth thinking about why that statement was removed.
Climate sensitivity not so sensitive?
Adobe Acrobat (full Pro version) has a Compare Documents tool under the Document Processing menu that is extremely useful, even if it finds changes that are ultimately determined to be negligible. You can do it on a chapter by chapter basis, and farm the job out to volunteers who own the program. The full program costs hundreds of dollars but you can rent the program by the month for comparative chicken feed at Adobe’s Creative Cloud site. Adobe also gives you 30 days free to assess the full program.
I don’t know how well that would work as there were substantial formatting changes between the two versions (and figures/tables added to the text). It’s worth looking into though.
Brandon, there’s a “text-only” selection. It will compare all kinds of PDF, from scans with no underlying text (in other words, just images) to presentations to fully-featured PDF. Developed for long, complicated government and legal docs. (nyer, nyer)
Yup. I found some similar software and tried running it on Chapter 10. It highlights a lot of inconsequential changes (or changes I’m not sure are changes), but if you skim through them, you can find the more substantial ones. It appears the only changes in Chapter 10 are ones I’ve highlighted. I went through Chapter 19 as well, and I didn’t find any notable changes their either. The biggest change in it was the order of entries in a table was changed.
I don’t know that I’d have the patience to repeat the process with every chapter. It’s pretty tedious.
Is there a 3,000 page copy of each somewhere? Then you could run it overnight. Or approach a highschool the class for help.
“It’s worth thinking about why that statement was removed.”
Thinking about it from the IPCC point-of-view, the reason for the change seems clear: the very concept of “climate change” is entirely dependent on the idea that the effect of climate change must always be bad.
If anything good happens in the environment, then that’s called “weather”
The vague “may be beneficial” was replaced by the precise “17 out of 20 estimates are negative” (leaving the reader the deduce the sign of the remaining three).
I’m sure people around the word are “deduc[ing] the sign of” zero as that’s what one data point is. Another data point, 0.1, might as well be zero as it’s a percent, meaning its actually 0.001. No estimation in that graph has that sort of precision.
Plus, that data point is completely unjustified as it isn’t present in the paper the IPCC cites meaning there is no basis for it.
As it stands, there is only one non-baseless data point which shows any benefit. That’s one out of 20. And “coincidentally” it is taken from a paper of the person who wrote the section.
Richard, goede morgen,
Then the IPCC should come right out and clearly state that in 85% of its models the effects of climate change are negative, and only positive in the remaining 15%.
That would be a clear statement of conclusions and something than can then be scrutinized.
It is the ongoing, unexplained, undeclared, underhanded “fishtailing” without explanation that has cost the IPCC its credibility.
Not just with readers here and on the various other “skeptical” blogs -many of whom have bona fides scientific and technical backgrounds [a PhD in a relevant discipline for yours truly]- but crucially in the political capitals of a growing number of countries worldwide. Australia, Canada, India, China, Japan, Poland, take your pick.
The fact that none of the IPCC models a] flagged even remotely the possibility of the ongoing multi-decade flat lining in global temperatures in essentially all metrics [no heat hiding in the oceans’ depths either] and b] that these models are all still running by far to hot going in their projections because there is an institutionalized refusal to accept the empirical data demonstrating that their parameters for climate sensitivity are completely off, were the final nails in the IPCC’s credibility coffin.
But underlying it all has always been the underhandedness and closed door political deal making that ultimately caused you too, to disavow the IPCC.
Richard:
Literally applying change identified in your comments, the quote has been changed as follows:
BEFORE: “Climate change may be beneficial for moderate climate change but turn negative for greater warming”.
TOL’s CHANGE: The vague “may be beneficial” was replaced by the precise “17 out of 20 estimates are negative”
AFTER: “Climate change 17 out of 20 estimates are negative for moderate climate change but turn negative for greater warming”.
This obviously makes no grammatical sense, but I’m willing to stipulate in the haste of the moment the quote and/or replaced text were stated incorrectly.
However, the bigger issue is the original quote was a positive statement about moderate climate change, but the final version is strongly negative about the same phenomena. How does such stark reversal of opinion get down to a secret & last minute revision?
Is the cup half-full or is the cup half empty.
For climate change it is always half empty. Climate change is always, always bad, which is absurd using common sense but apparently acceptable when using models in super computers.
How climate models are used lack common sense, or in some cases even minimal sense. Using models to simulate how different air-plane designs might work is an order of magnitude simpler than modelling the climate in order to predict how global climate 50-100 years from now. Even in the simpler challenge of air-plane design, prototypes are built and tested, since computer models are not a guarantee of actual performance. Models are only a tool, a means to an end, not the end. That models cannot guarantee actual performance and require validation, I guess is news to climate science modellers. This is the point where minimal sense comes into play.
Getting back to the quote, the quote was obviously changed to maintain a negative slant, but impressively remains just as confusing. I conclude the people who write these types of statements either lack writing skills or clear thinking or both. But this is nitpicking relative to the main problem with the quote – it is so poorly supported it should not have been included.
Brandon, it seems to be a polítical amputation. The revised graph shows a net benefit to date versus preindustrial. It also shows a benefit if temperature increases about 0.2 degrees C versus today’s temperature. The removal renders the full IPCC report meaningless due to lack of trust in any of its contents. If I had a vote I would close the IPCC. It’s too much work and very little credibility.
Fernando Leanme, I don’t agree the revised graph shows any benefit at all. All it shows is 20 data points. My impression is they removed that sentence because it refers to a regression which wasn’t included in the report (but that Richard Tol has done elsewhere). Without such a regression, you can’t say the data shows any one thing. When all you have are a bunch of data points, people can interpret them in many ways.
That said, I do suspect there was a political aspect to the decision to remove the sentence. I’m just not sure what the politics involved were. There are several competing factors to this.
One complication is the sentence in question was not included in any of the drafts of the IPCC report sent to reviewers. One could reasonably believe it was added for political reasons (to downplay global warming). That means it could have been added, and removed, because of competing politics amongst people who disagree.
Which really just makes the IPCC less trustworthy. If people with different goals can fight in backrooms to make the IPCC support their personal views, there’s little reason to trust anything the IPCC says.
Exactly right Brandon!! The IPCC is all politics, & the voters of the world should be given a vote on whether, or not, we are willing to keep paying their salaries.
Hmm. That was removed?
It will be interesting to read the explanation.
Indeed! As always, the benefits are KOWN, the predicted harms CONSISTENTLY fail to manifest.
[“KNOWN” instead? .mod]
Climate agnotology on display!
So in essence, the pig now wears lipstick. Good to know. Not surprised. I would rather read real research papers, critique them, and build my knowledge that way. Too bad politicians on both sides of the debate would rather kiss a pig.
Pamela:
The pig already had lipstick, makeup, eye shadow, facelift, liposuctioned, hair implants; now the pig just got more shots of botox and cellulite in secretive places.
It’s been ham long enough; time to salt, smoke and fry it for sliced crispy bacon.
You forgot the pedicure (hooficure?).
This isn’t just a changing of words, it’s a change of data.
The changes are insignificant and irrelevant as compared to the message: “Shut up and give us all your stuff”.
You got that right!
The changes are insignificant and irrelevant as compared to the message: “Shut up and give us all your stuff”.
Nice summary, Akatsukami. The IPCC can use that for AR6. The time saved can be spent partying at exotic locations, eh?
Who implemented the changes? A document of this “policy setting” nature surely would at least document that part. Even Wiki does that!
This stuff should be challenged in court. Just like climate bullies, they will not stop until there are repercussions.
ossqss, one of the things I found most troubling, and that I highlighted in the full post, is the IPCC does have official change documents. These documents are supposed to record changes like the ones I found. They don’t. Instead, they merely list some typographical changes.
A person who read the IPCC’s documents claiming to show the changes made would be led to believe changes were only made to fix minor typos and the like. They’d never know major conclusions, and even data points, were changed.
Richard Toll, your CV as given in various places including Sussex University says that you won the Nobel Prize.
“He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007; an author and editor of the UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment “
note the comma and the semicolon
shared winner refers to the IPCC
That hardly seems clear. It could even be said to refer to the working groups, not the IPCC – as you’re claiming..
Thanks for commenting, but you squeezed yourself and “Nobel Peace Prize” into the same sentence in a way that was highly ambiguous. To avoid embarrassment and confusion, I’d have clarified the statement thus:
“He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (The latter organization shared the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007). He is also an author and editor of the UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment.”
Well then, we’re all assuming you certainly wouldn’t mind restating the CV to prevent inadvertent misunderstanding, not to mention the personal & professional embarrassment encountered by others that have “inadvertently claimed” to have shared the Nobel with the UN IPCC
I was reminded of another issue which is very odd. The WGII SPM says:
While citing Chapter 10. Chapter 10’s Executive Summary section has the exact same text, citing section 10.9. Section 10.9 does not have any text to support those values. There is absolutely nothing in 10.9 which gives a total, quantified estimate. That means the IPCC SPM cites text in Chapter 10 which has no given basis.
Additionally, the changes I highlighted in this post are all in Section 10.9. They all deal with the attempt to quantify the potential economic damage of global warming. It stands to reason the values given should be tied to the data I’m discussing. If that’s true, the changes I highlight could well change the results given in the SPM.
But we can’t tell because the SPM uses values not present anywhere in the report, and the changes to the data were never disclosed, much less explained.
Brandon, surely you don’t think the “students” who are the IPCC should have to show how they obtained their answers to the exam question, do you? These are the best & brightest among us, & all we lesser mortals can do is bow down & pay homage at their knees in the hope a few crumbs of genius will be brushed off their cloaks onto our heads.
i think the main problem lies in the fact the ipcc never expected anyone to actually read the document,understandable as it really is nothing more than opinionated gobbledegook interspersed with some pretty pictures and meaningless charts and grafts.
as has been mentioned,the united nations organisation is well past its sell by date.
Secrecy should play no part in any scientific document that ultimately affects government policy and the lives of people. What is there to hide?
What’s to hide is the game. The game being to drag the question out for the course of ones career, never provide an answer and to get paid every two weeks. You run into this mentality in the private sector all the time. The boss won’t make a decision in regards to an issue because if he does and it is the right decision then everyone looks to him for the next right decision until finally he makes the wrong decision. If the boss makes the wrong decision then that’s it, he’s gone. What the boss does is hires a consultant or convenes a committee or delegates the decision to a subordinate. The boss preserves his position and status in the organization in fact improves his position because he ends up in control of more resource and accomplishes even less and completely evades responsibility for the situation at hand.
Actually, lip stick on a pig is rather obvious. Probably designed that way. A veritable light magnet to political moths at night. The more lip stick you put on the pig, the more eager a politician is to kiss it.
Uh Pamela, that isn’t the lips part the politicians are trying to kiss.
Claudius – you missed the final steps. The boss hires consultants, forms subcommittees to assess each option, and they should report back to him in… (when can we all meet again?) 6 weeks. At that next meeting 2 of the subcommittees say that their option would have needed to have started a month ago – so now they are infeasible. The remaining subcommittees report and they will report back to the boss in… (when can we all meet again?) 6 weeks. In the mean time on the shop floor they are running into a hard deadline so they decide a workaround and go ahead with that pending a decision from the boss.. At the next 6 weekly meeting the remaining options are discussed, but someone points out that in any case the shop floor is doing something different already.. So the boss now closes the subcommittees as there is no point getting the shop floor to rework. So the boss has managed to avoid not only making the decision, but also blame for the way the issue is being solved. Bosses that make no mistakes get promoted to an even higher level of indecision and blame avoidance.
Ian W, you couldn’t be more right. Whatever the “problem” is the political and organizational maneuvering is the focus. The problem is reduced to the status of a smoke screen behind which all this activity occurs.
Brandon Shollenberger,
I am very interested. Thanks for your efforts and your post.
If enough public attention is put on the detected changes then the befuddled bureaucracy at the IPCC Bureau might be prodded to provide an official disclosure of the changes and scientifically derived justifications.
John
John Whitman, glad to hear it!
I actually intend to file a notice with the IPCC through their formal process. I’m just waiting until the matter has been discussed a bit to see if new information is discovered/more examples found. I’ll be curious to see how the IPCC responds.
In the meantime, you might want to look at a new post I just uploaded. It addresses an issue I brought up in a comment above, that the IPCC seems to have just pulled some numbers used in the SPM out of thin air:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/10/19/where-did-the-ipcc-get-its-numbers-from/
I second John’s sentiment and appreciations Brandon.
Well done Brandon!
Data is from Tol himself, who made mistakes that he “repaired” after AR5 – en then his repair needed repair again. But maybe it should never have been published in the first place: http://andrewgelman.com/2014/05/27/whole-fleet-gremlins-looking-carefully-richard-tols-twice-corrected-paper-economic-effects-climate-change/
The part I find troubling is Richard Tol published multiple papers with what he claimed were estimates taken from papers, but were aggregated by him. When asked to show his work, so people could check the calculations he used for those aggregations, he refused while mocking them for making the requests. The IPCC finally made him provide the calculations in response to a complaint filed by Bob Ward, but when he did, the calculations gave different answers than he had previously published.
That means Tol mocked people for requesting him show his work so they could check his math, and when he finally did, his math didn’t support the answers he published. And despite this, the IPCC claims to be taking the data from Tol’s 2013 paper, even though that paper lists different values than it does.
It’s not clear to me how the IPCC can claim to be taking numbers from a paper even though those numbers are clearly different than those given by the paper.
By this account, Richard Tol is not the sort of scientist that the already disreputable IPCC needs on its staff.
BRANDON!!!!
PUT DOWN THE MAGNIFYING GLASS AND GO TO YOUR ROOM, NOW!!!!!!
YOU ARE GOING TO BURN YOURSELF WITH THAT THING!!!
Tim
Secrecy should play no part in any scientific document that ultimately affects government policy and the lives of people. What is there to hide?
The IPCC’s reports – especially the SPMs – are not scientific documents. They are political pamphlets, ordered by the UN, and must be seen and judged as such.
“The Intergovernmental Panel was founded –
not a scientific body, please note –
Whose goal was a foregone conclusion
For which responsible nations could vote.
“This gas must become a pollutant!”
The task of the Panel was clear:
“Feed Apocalypse Now to your models
And fill the whole planet with fear!”
No AGW = no IPCC , now that is simple maths
No IPCC = No AGW!
……”the IPCC seems to have just pulled some numbers used in the SPM out of thin air”
Appell says that MUC is the most robust way to convey the urgency of AGW.
Make Up Cr@p.
The institutionalized blatant lying hasn’t come easy. It took decades of becoming dependent upon telling little white lies, embellishments, tall tales and public deceit as an acceptable tool for policy making.
Once the institutions became glued to the notion that the truth doesn’t work for the ignorant masses they licensed themselves to use any and all means to impose what must be.
Perhaps this would be a good opportunity for the newly formed OAS (Open Atmospheric Society) to respond Brandon.
Anthony, would that fall into the organization’s operational environment?
http://theoas.org
The changes are a new form of math called an Algorithm, for which he is likely to get a Nobel Prize.
The computer changed the spelling and ruined the joke. It is supposed to be an Algoreithm.
We knew what you meant, Tim.
[We’ve said it before: On this site, do not post a video link without an introduction or description of that video. .mod]
Mod:
With all due respect, ADMAN probably thought labeling the thing “IPCC” did the trick.
All I see is a black box with a stylized “f” for Flash or Flash block, a plugin I have that prevents Flash stuff from running until I click on it. So if there’s normally some image that explains it, I don’t see it. I generally don’t bother to click on such things, and in this case, being from “Admad” I figure it’s an ad and not worth clicking on.
I’m not sure why I’m taking the time to reply….
Mods: apologies. I hadn’t seen your previous advisories. Your point is taken on board. Thanks.
Ric: good point, I hadn’t considered that. Thank you. Sorry if it irritated you. Most of my contributions tend to be “humour” related…
Procedurally, this is what happened.
The material on the economic impact of climate change was originally part of Chapter 19. After 3 drafts, the text was still a mess, and the authors had their hands full with the rest of the chapter. Therefore, this part was moved to Chapter 10, rewritten in response to the review comments, and send out for extra review.
After the final draft is accepted, there are three legal ways to change an IPCC chapter.
First, there is “trickle-down”. For instance, the Summary for Policy Makers shows an average of the estimates in the chapter. The chapter, however, originally did not show that average. It was added later.
Second, there are errata. (The first is already up. More to follow.)
Third, if you spot an error as the report is being readied for production (a process that took 6 months in this case), you correct that error and document the changes. After all, it is a bit silly to print a report with known errors and immediately issue errata.
As I argue above, the changes are really minor. Scrutiny is good, of course, but there are really bigger fish to catch (chapter 7, 13, 19).
If it’s only a matter of correcting typos, fine.
But if the errors are data or statements inconvenient to the desired conclusion, not fine.
I do hope that all the changes and the reasons for them have been documented along with the names of those who approved the changes.
No typos. Data were copied incorrectly from the source to the database. As simple and stupid as that. There is why for errors like that.
Richard Tol’s claim here:
Is BS insofar as the IPCC report is concerned. The data was perfectly copied from his published papers. Those papers just had a number of errors (for whatever reason). The IPCC has made changes to the data because of those errors, even though a number of those errors were never corrected in the published literature.
Moreover, a number of the changes made were to results of aggregation calculations Tol himself performed. The calculations the IPCC published do not match the results Tol has previously published. Despite this, the IPCC cites Tol’s publication for these results. It’s a clear example of a false citation. The IPCC has somehow come up with a new set of calculations not present in any published literature while lying and saying the results of those calculations were published in Tol 2013.
Put simply, the IPCC has modified its data set without any oversight, without any external review and without any published literature upon which to draw its changes (though it falsely claims to be using the results of Tol 2013).
These changes do seem to have been made with “good faith,” as near as I can tell. Thanks for that.
However, After all, it is a bit silly to print a report with known errors and immediately issue errata.
Is this really correct? It’s a way to track/catalogue errors in the final draft, for one, and that has utility. For two, consider the author’s complaint:
If the changes are few and insignificant, the errata too will be small, and much easier to see than having to do a human diff of the two versions.
Ed Barbar, I’m not sure what “good faith” would lead the IPCC to remove the footnote for the Mendelsohn 2000 entries which said those results were aggregated by Tol 2013. Doing so falsely portrays the entries as being taken directly from two Mendelsohn 2000 papers (though only one such paper was actually cited) when they were not.
This deception allowed the IPCC/Richard Tol not to show the aggregation calculations which led to the values they published for the Mendelsohn papers as every paper with that footnote had such calculations published. Other undisclosed changes seem strangely convenient, and to serve no legitimate purpose, as well.
On the issue of errata, the IPCC published an errata document along with the report. No mention of any change I highlighted was included. In fact, my post discusses three different documents which can explain changes made after the Final Draft specifically to show none of those documents document these changes.
So, after 30+ years of continuous IPCC “climate alarm-bell-clanking” and dozens of international meetings, your IPCC cannot even write a single report once every 2 years summarizing what you “think” will be the economic impact of
(1) “Business as usual” (Get the UN’s corrupt bureaucrats out of the world’s energy taxation life.)
(2) Regulate and tax carbon to raise money for more bureaucrat jobs by destroying the world’s economies needlessly.
(3) Destroy the poor world and kill billions due to energy starvation, poor health, bad water, no sewer systems, no lights, no refrigeration, no roads, ditches, bridges, culverts, pipes, emergency and house power, and no modern (safe, sanitized, effective and efficient) food production and storage.
The “cost” of a 0-1 degree rise in temperature is “zero”; there are only benefits.
The chances of a -2 to +1 degree rise in global average temperatures by year 2100 is 45%
The “cost” of a 1-2 degree rise in temperature is “zero”; there are only benefits.
The chances of a +1 to +2 degree rise in global average temperatures by year 2100 is 35%
The “cost” of a 2-3 degree rise in temperature is “zero”; there are only benefits.
The chances of a +2 to +3 degree rise in global average temperatures by year 2100 is 10%
The “cost” of a +3 to +4 degree rise in temperature is “negligible”; there are many billion benefiting, but a few thousand people may experience inconveniences, or may have to move.
The chances of a +3 to +4 degree rise in global average temperatures by year 2100 is 8%
The “cost” of a +4 or higher degree rise in temperature is “minor”; there are many billion benefiting, but a few hundred thousand people may experience inconveniences, or may have to move.
The chances of a +4 or more degree rise in global average temperatures by year 2100 is 2%
Now, there is your economic analysis.
So, just what are those mythical 17 out of 20 “costs” you think will occur if CO2 rises.
Oh, and by the way, CO2 has risen steadily the past 18 years while you’ve been spending writing reports – well, sort of trying to write reports – and global average temperatures have …not gone up at all.
“Those who don’t remember the past won’t notice when it’s been changed.” (Or something like that.)
Brandon, Thanks for noticing.
+10
Good work, Brandon Shollenberger, praise be yours.
What is Figure 10-1? Does it have a title? What is it about? The y axis label is not readable in the picture. The last word looks like it is “percent”. Most people who visit this page already understand the power and money scam aspect of global warming, your faithful climate gurus who are familiar with the IPCC report might understand this article but you are not going to help anyone else understand the scam with articles written with this much presumed understanding.
It appears Richard Tol may have answered one of my questions above. He said:
I took the average of the nine estimates at 2.5C in his original graph. The result was 1.1. The SD was .9. That would give a 1SD range of 0.2 – 2.0, exactly what Chapter 10 and the SPM report for 2C of warming. The 2.5C has magically switched to 2C. Now, Tol might claim this is because the 2C of warming is from modern times while 2.5C of warming is from pre-industrial times, but the papers which give the estimates that go into this calculation disagree.
That would seem to indicate the IPCC didn’t pull numbers out of thin air. It did a calculation for 2.5C of warming then simply lied and claimed it was for 2C of warming. Additionally, the IPCC chose to ignore the fact the numbers which went into that estimation changed. The undisclosed changes I highlighted mean there are seven data estimates for 2.5C of warming:
The average of those is ~1.4, with a SD of ~.8. If we perform the calculations the way Tol says they were performed on the data set actually published in the IPCC report, the range changes to 0.7 – 2.2 percent loss for 2.5C of warming.
I guess Tol might say the difference between 0.2 – 2.0 percent economic loss for 2C of warming and 0.7-2.2 percent economic loss for 2.5C of warming doesn’t matter. I’d disagree. Even if the overall impression doesn’t change, the fact the IPCC report can’t give a straight answer definitely matters.
And really, why would we only average some of the data points on a graph? If you have 20 data points, how do you choose to average just nine of them?
Very good Question Brandon sometime’s they think we a stupid and it burns them ;>)
1SD? This will only represent 68 % of the values. 2SD would represent 95% and 3SD 99% can we see these values for the data?
I should mention that 9 data point is probably not an ideal sample. Is the full data available and the methods for obtaining the data?
I actually gave enough information in my post to figure out about what the ranges would be. For the original range, take an average of 1.1 and add/subtract ~.9 for each SD you want to consider. For the new range, use 1.4 and ~.8.
But it’s a mostly useless exercise. There are 20 data points (you can find tables listing the original data set for the IPCC and the new version after changes in my post). Ignoring more than half of them is strange.
Beyond that, these data points are aligned by how large a temperature change their estimates were for. That doesn’t mean those estimates are comparable though. If one paper modeled a temperature change of 2.5C by 2100 while another modeled a temperature change of 2.5C by 2050, their damage estimates would not be comparable. The rate of temperature change is a huge factor in any damages that may happen. One cannot sensibly compare data points whose absolute temperature changes are the same but achieved at different times. There is no way to know what sort of uncertainties or biases would be introduced by comparing estimates for different scenarios.
Yes. Now if chp 10 has used 1SD it is the only range where lower and upper limits are positive which ‘suits’ the narrative wheras 2SD gives -0.6 to 2.8 deg which would not. Assuming of course that they used the same data sets.
Those figures 68, 95, 99 % for 1, 2 and 3 SD only applies for normally distributed data. It seems highly dubious that estimates for the economic effect of temperature changes would be normally distributed. For one thing the estimates are very unlikely to be independent. And 6 data points is far too few to verify the distribution empirically.
But of course IPCC habitually uses SD in cases where it isn’t applicable.
tty, that’s a good point. Some additional text in that paragraph even says the uncertainties are not normally distributed. That’s actually part of why I thought the range must come from some other calculation. I didn’t seriously consider the idea they’d take a simple average +/- SD for their range while saying the assumptions used when calculating that range are wrong.
Yes tty, access to the full data would be really useful if it is published and then if time can be found to analyse it statistically dependent on the volume of data.
Man Bearpig, the data they used, as they used it, is available in the tables I discuss. If you’re willing to dig through references, you can find a lot of the values in various papers, though the values in the papers don’t always match the values given in the tables. There’s also the problem of some of them being aggregated by Richard Tol. He’s provided calculations for these aggregations because of the IPCC requiring him do so (he refused for years before this), but those calculations give different results than his previously published results. No explanation is given for the discrepancy.
Also, no explanation is given for why he now claims the two Mendelsohn 2000 values were not calculated by him when he had claimed they were for the last five years. The paper cited by the IPCC does not even consider the scenario claimed in the table as it cited the wrong paper (and falsely claimed to take estimates from two different papers). If you do manage to track down the correct paper, you’ll find it doesn’t have the values given, meaning they had to have been aggregated by Tol like he had originally said. The calculations for those results are not available anywhere.
I believe I’ve done all the work to show this in my post. I’m not sure how much it will help though. Even if you can get all the “right” values, you’re still stuck with an insurmountable problem. Each paper listed in those tables used a different temperature baseline for its estimates. One paper might estimate damages for 1.92C of warming since pre-industrial times (Bosello 2012) while another estimates damages for 3C of warming since ~1990 (Nordhaus 1994). Another might estimate damages since ~2010. You can’t just take these values and throw them into a table and say they’re comparable, though that’s exactly what Tol did.
And even if the temperature baselines could somehow be aligned, each paper used a different economic growth scenario. Each used a different rate of warming scenario. Practically nothing about their scenarios are the same. That makes it impossible to make meaningful, quantified comparisons between them.
But if someone wanted to anyway, it’s pretty easy to get the right values for 13 of the 20. If there are any that can’t be found via my post, I can provide them. I have no idea on the other seven though. They all depend upon aggregation calculations, and there’s no “right” way to do those. We can tell that by the fact the guy doing them (Richard Tol) gives different results at different times when doing them.
sorry are not a we need edit do your hear that wordpress
Pamela Gray is most correct. Vote. The climate problem is 97% politics. The climate if fine. It is the government that has a problem. Vote out all that support destroying the US economy. End the needless funding of global warming. Put in check, trim and downsize every federal department. Sell all unused government buildings. ( Some say this is difficult. Then find one person that can). Cheap and abundant energy is what made this country what it is. The EU will have to come here to manufacture as their electric rates rise. My son graduated form Penn State 17 months ago with a degree in Petroleum Engineering. (Yes, next door to Micky, also an ant-fracker). He works for an energy service company and must be very good as after 9 months they are kicking him upstairs 2 or 3 notches at the end of this year. He must take after my father, a brilliant PE that was a lead engineer for “Project Elf”. Amazing what a man without a college degree can do. This project was protested and sabotaged by the greenies of their day. A few worms may have had a problem, but the trees loved it. Government employees should not bring any political agenda to their jobs. Hear me EPA and Homeland Security and IRS? You love to make rules. Start in your own department. Perhaps the UN should find a new home in a country that fits their philosophy. I suggest France. Yes VOTE. Next on the soap box, I’m tired. Ric
Was there any attempt at a basic sense check for the data included in this plot? The two ‘self-reported happiness’ data points stretch credibility beyond breaking point, so why include them? If the standard for inclusion is so low, why should we have any confidence in any of the other data points?
If it has been mentioned previously, I apologize. I noticed in the new version a study by Maddison & Rendanz (2011) on “Self-reported happiness” had the GDP impact raised from -11.5% to -12.4%. Since fewer people seem to be buying the doom and gloom predictions, would not happiness in general have gone up and GDP impact reduced? Roson and van der Mensbrugghe (2012) had the GDP impact for their study (a CGE study) raised to a range of -2.1% to -6.1%. Headlines are bound to appear soon: “It’s worse than we thought.”
Windsong, no problem, but I did report those changes in my post. An excerpt for one paper:
Both the 11.5 and 12.4% figures are attributed to Tol 2013 even though Tol 2013 lists the value as 11.5%. For the other paper, I quoted the paper:
Then pointed out:
Then quoted another paper to prove my contention. After which, I said, “It appears the undisclosed changes to the percent values for this paper were made to fix a problem which didn’t actually exist.”
It’s very strange.
So, if I claim that “CAGW-fear and CAGE-propagandized political actions” COST the world’s economies 8% every year, that increased CO2 has led to a 22% INCREASE in all plant growth worldwide increasing food, fuel, fodder, feast and lowering famine, am I more correct than these political UN hacks who somehow have assumed that – what? increased “heat”? – will somehow the world’s GDP and productivity by 1.8%?
This observation seems to be related to this recent rather public criticism from Bob Ward.
Yup. I had started writing my post before his article was published, but I uploaded it a few hours after his went live. Interestingly, I found his article when I went to contact him to notify him of what I had found. I blame him beating me to the punch on the fact my piece had a lot more detail and research 😀
By the by, Bob Ward’s communication with the IPCC is the likely cause of (many of?) these changes. Richard Tol claims otherwise, but Ward contacted the IPCC about a number of specific issues which were then addressed* by changes in the IPCC report. I’d give him the credit for triggering these changes.
*Not necessarily in a correct or sensible manner.
“but I uploaded it a few hours after his went live”
Bob’s article is dated May 9th. Are you saying it only appeared in recent days?
Oh, no. I misread which link you provided. I had thought you posted this link, where Bob Ward talks about some of the same stuff this post discusses. In it, he points out the IPCC made changes in response to criticisms like those in the link you provided.
Sorry about that!
So now that we’re read through almost 100 comments from parties with various degrees & professional experience, I have a question for the graduate-level science teachers in the audience:
What grade would you give to one of your masters/PhD students who published work of similar quality to the IPCC article under discussion?
Do you want the grade before or after the politically-corrupt (er, politically-correct) secretive additional editing done on the fly without supervision, review, comment, or correction?
I strongly suspect either way the grade is a fail.
In any event, the 25 year-old CAGW fraud has to have been one hell of an emotional ride, especially for the original participants:
(1) Highly speculative AGW stuff you know is crap gets accepted as gospel by the world’s politicians, a bunch of the most ethically vacuous beings on the planet.
(2) Mother Nature (and data manipulation) keep the scam (and copious “research” funding) rolling in during the early years as politicians whip up public support for their proposed taxes and economic control to “fix” CAGW.
(3) Oooops – Mother Nature’s chaotic performance no longer plays ball and we have “Climategate”and “the Pause”…
(4) Even the aforementioned politicians begin to realize the scam is falling apart before they can complete their massive proposed tax grabs…
(5) CAGW acolytes are now realizing said politicians will throw them under the bus the very nano-second public opinion turns against this fraud.
They’ll have no problem throwing Richard Tol under the bus if that’s what everyone wants.
Richard Tol @RichardTol · Oct 17
Targets for renewables are unattainable, futile – and will cost us trillions of pounds
Just a note on the graphs themselves: Future economic impact against temperature change. Based on what? Parameters like “Natural Catastrophes” and “Self-reported Happiness.” Even if the temperature did increase dramatically, did any of these researchers consider the human race’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances? This is just crystal ball gazing, someone’s wild-ass guess about the future. But if you can plot points on a graph, it must be science.
The IPCC process seems to me to be the present day embodiment of the Ministry of Truth. Rhetorical tools as memory hole, historical revisionism, and doublethink seem to be common in how the IPCC operates. The starkest example, and the most devious, of course, is the change from “global warming” to “climate change” terminology. IPCC proponents push a changing climate agenda as “Climate Change”, to allow simultaneous operation of 3 quite different operational definitions in the reader audience. Further, through the years the story subtlety changes, a small minor revision here, an unsupported correction there. Essentially, the IPCC employs memory creep tectonics — small incremental creep to keep the lie alive, all due to an inconvenient fact that the Earth’s real climate system isn’t cooperating. Over time, large displacements and an implied Thermageddon Boogeyman are always just beyond a time horizon, which is now conveniently at 2050.
I have read the post, gone to the link mentioned, and read the comments to here.
The main thing I get out of all this is that a bunch of ignorant people tried to predict the economic impact of warmer temperatures and no one has any reason to believe they know what they are talking about. Then the UN secretly changed the wild assed guesses? Hmmmmm.
Suppose the earth were to warm on average 3 degrees. So what? Most of the warming would come in places like Canada and then those dirty @#$@#$ would grow more wheat or other grains and make our US farm corporations have to compete more. But what is the overall net effect of that warming? Poor people might find food a little cheaper and their heating bills a little less. Is this a bad thing?
But my main comment is that predicting the outcome of 3 degrees of warming is G.D. impossible. They can’t even tell you what Apple’s stock price will be in 18 months and they claim to be able to predict the GDP impact of CO2 on a global scale? Oh my. Oh my, my.
Note: I am [not] saying I believe that there will be any warming at all. There will be a continued slide colder with some ups and downs along the way. Just has it has been for about 20,000 years. (buy stock in coat making companies)
Note to self: try proof reading before hitting post comment. “I am note saying” should be “I am not saying”. The trouble the “e” causes me all the time!
I did try:
pdftotext -nopgbrk -raw WGIIAR5-Chap10_FGDall.pdf 1.txt
pdftotext -nopgbrk -raw WGIIAR5-Chap10_FINAL.pdf 2.txt
followed by:
diff -y -i -w -B -d -t -E -Z 1.txt 2.txt|more
on Ubuntu box.
Although there is a lot of similarity between the two files, there are major changes between both.
It seems as though the best approach will be to print both out and do a manual line by line comparison!!!!
Any big changes to TS.6, Key Uncertainties? All the important stuff they admit they don’t know!
The IPCC functions under the UN, which is a political body, not a scientific one. Why they proclaimed themselves the global overlords of one field of science is another one of those great unexplained mysteries of the universe. Especially since in that role, they have demonstrated incompetence, lack of integrity, a bias that clearly shows they are nothing more than advocates to a political agenda (which any political body does but until climate science, science refrained from). So they are not “allowing” anything, they are purposely manipulating the report.
Tol claims the changes are insignificant and so do not require review, if insignificant why bother to make the changes? In fact in that case do not make changes, period. BTW who decides what are significant vs. insignificant changes? The lack of integrity the IPCC demonstrates, even with their checkered history never ceases to amaze.
Seeing that 0.1% is negligible according to Dr. Toll, can you please send me the negligible 0.1% of the worlds GDP spending on climate change ( or what ever the name you are using)? Hey Richard and the IPCC, I’ll be easy on you guys I’ll give you a break, so 0.01% of the worlds GDP spent on climate change will do just fine as well, it’s even more negligible right? Not to me though, and something as important to the human race as the climate really is, it is disturbing that people in your shoes can be as glib as you are. OPM I guess.
Whole chapter in IPCC Report is a joke. They estimate for Economic Sectors that say ski tourism would take a hit at an economic cost, but would they consider agriculture where it would be a big plus? More CO2 enhances green and photosynthesis and a longer growing season. If CO2 levels fell instead of rising the exact same ppm last century and less green and maybe a billion+ would be dead due to starvation. They conveniently omit the positive economic effects of CO2 on the agricultural sector, but for all important energy sector of course have political negative effects a clean renewable energy forced upon by government raising electricity prices doing harm. The science and objectivity of IPCC is a joke.
Global cooling would cause so much more economic damage than global warming, and despite IPCC forecasts looks like nature is running to cooling trend with low sunspot cycle 24 after after century high on cycle 22, Dalton or Maunder minimum could be at hand, plus magnetic field of earth falling, more cosmic rays seeding more clouds blocking out a weaker sun as poles reverse, potential for a much colder 30 years out there. My forecast is political reverse and direct purposeful anthropomorphic climate change by governments to prevent cooling catastrophe within two decades, this could morph.
Joe: Agriculture is in Chapter 7.
Wow, Brandon, you seem to have gone to great lengths to figure this out including sleeping with the enemy. How was it, being Bob Ward’s puppy?
Congratulations on writing the dumbest comment I’ve ever seen Shub Niggurath. This shows exactly why nobody should bother talking to you.
ok, a joke misfire, and you are not Bob Ward’s or anyone’s puppy but clearly some kinship there as you and Ward both worked through the evening, yours had more detail but he went public first and ‘beat you to the punch’. It sounded dizzying.
Given what you’ve said to me in the past Shub Niggurath, I don’t believe that was “a joke misfire.” You’ve made too many similar remarks while being completely serious. I don’t really care though. There is no “kinship” here. There is no “sleeping with the enemy.” Bob Ward and I likely don’t agree on much.
The only thing we’ve agree on is what many skeptics refused to agree on six months ago – that secret changes to the IPCC report made absent any sort of review or oversight are wrong. I tried to draw people on the skeptical side’s attention to it six months ago, and I was routinely shut down. Now, six months down the road, a similar thing happens again (with the exact same section of the IPCC report no less), and people on the skeptical side care.
I’ve got no explanation for that. All I know is Bob Ward and I both recognized it was wrong in the first case, both continue to agree it is wrong in the second case, and now skeptics seem to be joining in. At this point, it seems everyone can agree secret changes made to the IPCC report absent review or oversight are wrong.
And I think that’s a great thing. I can’t think of a single time in the past I’ve ever seen Dana Nuccitelli and Anthony Watts promote the same article. I think that shows this problem can be recognized by everyone.
Of course, it was a joke. You want to take it seriously so you can avoid dealing with skeptics being jealous of your proximity to Bob Ward. 😉
Between Dana, Ward and you I can’t think who is more interested in the integrity of the IPCC process. I
Not listing detailed changes made to such a globally important document is another sign of intellectual dishonesty and policy driven operations.
Recording any document change along with approval and justification/ purpose of the change is quality assurance fundamentals. The IPCC does not contain the desire for fundamental QA. Why?
Such document changes in our digital age are trivial to do with all the document software you can buy right off the self and which requires almost no training. Why is this so hard for the IPCC? It is like they purposely do not want stringent QA. Why?
John
Brandon: Advice regarding R. Toll. Deleterious to play “catch as catch can” with porcine resembling Tolls. (Rhyming puns not accidental.)
Max Hugoson, I’m not sure if I understood your meaning correctly, but if so, I agree and disagree. On the one hand, Richard Tol’s style of response is unhelpful, rude, dishonest and just terrible overall. On the other hand, his responses do sometimes give up a useful bit of information. I suspect that’s unintentional on his part.
And other times, they’re just funny. According to Richard Tol’s latest response to me, Chapter 10 and the SPM both give estimates of damage for temperature change relative to 1986-2005 and define “pre-industrial” as the 1850-1900 period.
So when the IPCC says:
Tol claims that means an increase of ~2C from ~1995 will cause 0.2 and 2.0% in damage. Because apparently when they say “additional temperature,” they mean temperature additional to what there was 20 years ago.
Brandon once again does a great job here but considering the lack of temperature increase, the failure of models, the papers left out of the IPCC, this is just so many angels dancing on pinheads!! The IPCC is not a science body and has no interest in understanding how the world’s natural systems work.
This exercise is like a poor shopkeeper phoning city hall that the mafioso has improperly parked their limo during their extorsion visit. The IPCC reports are being used to destroy wealth and retard scientific inquiry and people are arguing over the documentation history of a document that is such a wholesale sideswipe of the scientific method? Am I the only one who is shaking my head in disbelief over this state of affairs?
Not a slight against Brandon, just total frustration over how things got this way.
Why does anyone pay any attention to the IPCC reports?
The iPCC does not give proper consideration to the science of natural climate variability. Consequently, it is impossible for the IPCC to produce a fair assessment of the climate science in order to derive a fair assessment of Earth’s climate. It’s really that simple. The IPCC looks at the science of anthropogenic global warming.
If we were to equate the wealth of peer-reviewed scientific literature on climate to a car, then the work of the IPCC is tantamount to looking at a nut on the left rear wheel of the car (carbon dioxide). Forget about the car engine (the sun) and forget about the transmission (oceans; clouds; etc). That’s how bad the IPCC is!