CLINTEL to IPCC/COP26: AR6 Summary for Policymakers Flawed

Reposted from MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — November 4, 2021

“We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.”

The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is a voice for climate and energy realism in Europe and elsewhere. “There is no climate emergency” is their motto.

Founded in 2019, CLINTEL’s “main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy.” Continuing:

To this end:

1. The Foundation tries to communicate objectively and transparently to the general public what facts are available about climate change and climate policy and also where facts turn into assumptions and predictions.

2. The Foundation conducts and stimulates a public debate about this and carries out investigative reporting in this field.

3. The Foundation wants to function as an international meeting place for scientists with different views on climate change and climate policy.

4. The Foundation will also carry out or finance its own scientific research into climate change and climate policy.

“CLINTEL wants to take the role of independent ‘climate watchdog’, both in the field of climate science and climate policy.”

IPCC Complaint Letter

Recently, CLINTEL and the Irish Climate Science Forum wrote a complaint to the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr Hoesung Lee, regarding the scientific mischaracterizations of the Policymakers Summary to the 6th Scientific Assessment.

That letter and full criticism of October 26, 2021 (here) is reprinted below:

We have now carried out an interim review of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and believe that it misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas:

  1. It is not “unequivocal” that human influence alone has warmed the planet; the observed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred through some as yet unresolved combination of anthropogenic and natural influences.
  2. The new “hockey-stick” graph (Fig SPM.1), when analysed in detail, is a concoction of disparate indicators from various time periods over the last 2,000 years, which together fail to recognise the intervening well-established temperature variability, for example of the Roman and Medieval Warming periods and of the Little Ice Age.
  3. The incidence of so-called “extreme weather” events is erroneously misrepresented in the SPM compared to the more accurate depictions in the draft main report, which latter identify no statistically-significant trends in many categories over time.
  4. Developments in the cryosphere are also misrepresented in the SPM, particularly noting that there is virtually no trend in Arctic sea ice in the last 15 years.
  5. Likewise, developments in the ocean are erroneously misrepresented in the SPM; in particular, the likely modest GMSL rise to 2100 does not point to any “climate crisis”.
  6. The CMIP6 climate models are even more sensitive than the already overly-sensitive CMIP5 models of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence of low climate sensitivity. The models lead to invalid conclusions on ECS and “carbon budgets”; the likely global temperature increase to 2100 does not indicate a “climate crisis”.

These concerns are summarised in the table overleaf and are then analyzed in more detail in the pages that follow. Our more detailed analysis will follow in due course.

We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality.

The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation to whatever modest climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropriate. Given the magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific standards and demonstrate impeccable scientific integrity within the IPCC.

You may recall that, in 2010, the InterAcademy Council carried out an independent review of the IPCC procedures at the request of the then UN Secretary-General and IPCC Chairman. Among its recommendations were that reviewers’ comments be adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies be adequately reflected in IPCC reports. The AR6 SPM inspires little confidence that these recommendations have been put into effect.

We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.

Yours sincerely,

Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL (https://clintel.org),
Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF (www.ICSF.ie).

5 24 votes
Article Rating
101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BobM
November 5, 2021 2:11 pm

Beside the IPCC, where it will be immediately consigned to the waste basket, what organizations or media outlets do they send this to?

alastair gray
Reply to  BobM
November 5, 2021 4:36 pm

UK committee for Climate Change
UK Cabinet office
Kwasi Kwarteng Cabinet ministry for misleading energy and business
The EPA
The BBC
The Grauniad
Penn State distinguished Professoriat
The RoyalSociety
The Geological Society of London
Unfortunately they all have gaping garbage bins which echo the vacuity of their organic minds
So hats off to Guus et al but I fear it will be in vain while the propagadist alarmist asses bray to the sheeple, who listen.

Reply to  BobM
November 5, 2021 5:04 pm

Bradley’s posting and this WUWT one help get the word out. Here is my take over at CFACT:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/10/28/clintel-catalogs-ipcc-errors-in-time-for-un-cop-26/

Pass it on. Skeptics rule the blogosphere!

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  BobM
November 6, 2021 1:30 am

About a year ago I sent a copy of the declaration from Clintel and a link to their website, to my MP. I received a reply saying that “he would read it with interest”. He has not written back with any comment. At least I tried.

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/WCD-A4version1008212.pdf

layor nala
November 5, 2021 2:16 pm

Where’s Griff?

Reply to  layor nala
November 5, 2021 3:52 pm
Last edited 9 months ago by Krishna Gans
November 5, 2021 2:17 pm

All pretty meaningless points, as opposed to the Big Mac. Understand this, and “climate change” is over..

comment image

alastair gray
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 5, 2021 4:28 pm

Sorry mate your post as it stands is completely meaningless. If you have a narrativbe and a point please make it

Reply to  alastair gray
November 5, 2021 5:09 pm

Specifically what model is this? It shows a CO2 sensitivity of 0.78 degrees C, which is cool, but mindless as stated.

michel
Reply to  alastair gray
November 5, 2021 5:51 pm

He appears to have run a model, though he oddly doesn’t say which, and doubled CO2 levels, and then he shows the (very small) effect. It would really help if he were to say which model. You could probably do whatever he has done using Wood for Trees, though his format doesn’t seem to be a use of that, and I haven’t tried to replicate using it.

Reply to  michel
November 5, 2021 9:02 pm

Really? You don’t know modtran???

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

comment image

michel
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 6, 2021 9:34 am

Thanks. Always useful to know the source.

Dean
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 7, 2021 1:35 am

Makes it a lot easier for us who are not mind readers and are unable to just know what you meant.

Reply to  alastair gray
November 5, 2021 5:59 pm

I am doing so the whole time..

https://greenhousedefect.com/

In the short version: among others ECS estimates are build on an erroneous lambda (0.3 instead of 0.264) and ignore overlaps between GHGs and with clouds. This makes all the difference. Modtran can not reproduce these mistakes and so necessarilly and correctly produces a far lower ECS.

Sure modtran does not include lapse rate feedback (which is negative!), nor realistic surface emissivity, which reduces ECS even further. Neither it includes (speculative) cloud or surface albedo feedback.

However, the point is, there is huge evidence pointing out the fraud that climate science is right there in front of you. It is not some “theory building” stuff or some dubious source, but the basic science tool modtran. And you guys keep ignoring because.. you do not understand. It’s amazing.

michel
Reply to  E. Schaffer
November 6, 2021 9:54 am

Well, having glanced at the site where its all explained, its very very interesting. Will take some time to work through, but looks like it will be worth it!

Loydo
November 5, 2021 2:37 pm

When the opening lines include “slightly increased CO2 levels” you know you are in for a barrel of climate disinformation. How is a 47% increase “slight”?

Fossil fuel industry funded, professional disinformers trotting out the weasel words, the zombie myths, the repeatedly debunked talking points and the outright lies.

Check your skepticism at the door and lap it up.

Juan Slayton
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 3:03 pm

.47 times a very small number is a very small number indeed. Slight is the right word.

Loydo
Reply to  Juan Slayton
November 5, 2021 5:47 pm

Indeed, indeed, just like the increase in global population from 4 billion to 7.8 is “slight”. Go back to the entrance and look for your skepticism.

BCBill
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 7:56 pm

Loydo, you would be a sucker for big pharma propaganda where they love to report relative effects of their treatments and steadfastly avoid any discussion of what is biologically significant. The percentage changes, relative or absolute are meaningless without an analysis of biological significance. Given the diurnal, seasonal and longer fluctuations in temperature, you have pretty tough sell convincing that a one degree change in 100 years is biologically significant.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 8:27 pm

Whoosh … right over your head. You’re unable to follow the simplest of concepts, no wonder you’re a warmunist.

ATheoK
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 5:19 pm

Lolly’s baffle them with BS responses…

Meaningless nonsense that proves how mathematically challenged lolly is.

mothcatcher
Reply to  Juan Slayton
November 6, 2021 12:50 am

I agree that the use of the word ‘slight’ is not appropriate, and shows a tendency to propaganda in the Clintel letter. Shame, really, as the rest of it is correct, and in some respects understated.

Doonman
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 3:07 pm

Since plants have already evolved to use over 1000ppm CO2 concentration for photosynthesis, you should start your atmospheric CO2 percentage counting from there.

Otherwise, you are cherry picking atmospheric CO2 numbers for some strange reason that has absolutely nothing to do with the historical levels used by the biosphere.

When I calculate current levels of CO2 based on the optimum level for plants, I come up with -58.8%. 1000ppm vs 412ppm.

Why do you want to starve plants? Are you against food too?

aussiecol
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 3:15 pm

0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere. That is a ”slight” increase of 0.01%. And where do you get 47% from? I don’t think modern levels of CO2 have ever been as low as 221ppm, because that is 47% of the current level of 414ppm

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  aussiecol
November 5, 2021 3:30 pm

And where do you get 47% from?

You’re misunderstanding %ages in a common manner.

280 + 47% = 411. I think it was 280 ppm or so. Your calculation uses 47% of the existing amount instead of adding 47% to the previous amount.

It’s still sweet FA at 0.01% points* increase.

(*another way %ages are misused is to use a ‘scary’ relative figure like 47% instead of an absolute figure like 0.01%. This is like how ocean ‘acidification’ is portrayed as a ‘30% increase’ in ‘acidity’ when it’s really just 0.1pH closer to neutral. Alarmists are serial liars.)

Last edited 9 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
aussiecol
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 5, 2021 4:09 pm

Thanks

Loydo
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 5, 2021 5:59 pm

And what if ozone levels halved? You’d call that “slight”? And what if sulphate aerosols doubled or water vapour went up 10%? All slight apparently.

But, but where did you get 47% from? FFS.
Weassel words all the way down and that is the result.

Rick C
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 6:52 pm

A large percentage of a very small number is still a very small number. A small percentage of a very large number is a large number. The abuse of “percentage” numbers is a classic method of lying with statistics. An increase from one part per million to 2 ppm is a 100% increase as is an increase from 1 billion to 2 billion. But that does not mean they have equal significance.

Loydo
Reply to  Rick C
November 5, 2021 7:55 pm

slightly increased CO2 levels”
A 47% increase in the level of anything is not a slight change. Put down your Koolaid.

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 8:11 pm

Next fallback position: Ok its 47%, but how do we know its human? Doesn’t nature..blah, blah.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 9:40 pm

… how do we know its human?

We don’t! The evidence is weak, although nobody wants to be the one to tell the king he is naked.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 9:36 pm

47% of 0.000001 is 0.0000005; that is, something that might be just barely detectable at 1 PPM, rising to 1.5 PPM, has no practical significance! You have to look at things in context. Absolute statements such as you made demonstrate that you really don’t understand what you are talking about.

Last edited 9 months ago by Clyde Spencer
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 10:37 pm

A 47% increase in the level of anything is not a slight change. Put down your Koolaid.

If drop a 10 lb hammer on your foot, it’s gonna hurt. If i drop a 5 lb hammer on your foot, that’s only half as much, so Shirley that won’t hurt? I’m happy to experiment….

To put it more sensibly, if I drop a feather on your foot, it won’t hurt. If i drop a feather and a half on your foot, will it hurt? By your understanding, its 50% heavier, so Shirley it would hurt?

PCman999
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 12:40 am

If CO2 doubled or tripled the plants will still not have an optimal amount of plant food.

If 300% is still not enough, then definitely 47% is not enough and insignificant.

If I put 380kPa in my tires, and then you came along and pumped them up to 420kPa – my tires would still be flat.

Stop listening to the alarmist media, they have brainwashed you with the scare tactics to the point you’ve lost all common sense.

Even if the world ends up 5C warmer – it will be a good thing!

Even according to climate scientists, the tropics will hardly be affected and most of the change will happen at the poles. Judging by what has happened so far, (if it’s not the Earth naturally warming up after the Little Ice Age back to the warmth of the Middle Ages), Antarctica will be unaffected, still the world’s refrigerator, only the North warming up, and greening up like it was thousands of years ago.

There are still some petrified or frozen remains of trees in Northern Canada, near the mouth of the Mackenzie River emptying into the Arctic Ocean. They were growing there about 5000 years ago, and the nearest trees now are almost 200km to the south, now during this cold spell.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 8:36 pm

Weassel [sic] words all the way down and that is the result.

The result is your narrative and the narrative of everyone who believes there is such a thing as anthropogenic global warming.

You’re STILL unable to grasp the most rudimentary concepts. CO2 concentrations were at an all time low. The .01% increase in over 60 years has been a great benefit, but not nearly enough to reach the optimum concentration. Sadly we haven’t had a corresponding increase in temperatures.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 10:32 pm

But, but where did you get 47% from? FFS.
Weassel words all the way down and that is the result.

Loydo, Loydo. You’re losing it, mate.

The 47% was from you, and used slightly erroneously in a reply to you, and I just corrected the misapprehension and supported your use of 47%!

You’re getting your knickers all twisted up trying to refute anything and anyone who disagrees with you.

PCman999
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 12:24 am

Where the hell did you get that lie from? Ozone levels over the world have been normal and steady – except growing over cities. Antarctica gets low values of ozone during its winter because there is no sunlight/UV to create it.

Why don’t you stop embarassing yourself and pick up a text book?

(textbook because the old tried and true methods of instruction had much less politics and much more science and reason in them)

Joao Martins
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 4:34 am

Please, don’t feed this troll!

Discussing words is not discussing the core of the matter!

Changing the subject (a kind of straw man) from the essence of the question to the use of words is an old tool used by demagogues! Its result is just losing time in a vacuous dispute and forgetting the essence of the question!

Just check all the comments to this Loydo provocation and you will see that I am right: the real important matter (warming or not; slight warming or not; CO2 has effect or not) is absent, forgotten, almost all have engaged in discussing the (qualitative, subjective) use of words.

Last edited 9 months ago by Joao Martins
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 5, 2021 9:28 pm

This is like how ocean ‘acidification’ is portrayed as a ‘30% increase’ in ‘acidity’ when it’s really just 0.1pH closer to neutral.

They also unnecessarily round up from a legitimate 27%.

PCman999
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 6, 2021 12:53 am

how did they even get the 27%? If the pH goes from 8.2 to 8.1 the water is still basic. Are they counting the number of H ions floating around, or some other meaningless number.

Of course, that whole issue is a meaningless average like the temperature anomaly. If the flora and fauna of the sea can put up with fluctuations of pH of say, 8.5 to 7.9 on a daily basis, then I don’t think 0.1 even bares mentioning. What should be mentioned is that sea water has lots of dissolved calcium in it to act as a buffer. Any graphs of daily pH show the value going practically asymptotic at 7.9 which is still basic and not acidic.

For Loydo and Griff’s benefit, drinking water would (should) have a pH value of 7.0.

Back to meaningless anomalies – if I have to put up with a temperature range of -25 to +35 over the course of a year, and, say a +10 to +25 range on a nice day in May, why in the world does 2 or 3, oh heck, even 5 over a century make alarmists wet their pants? …or poop their Depends…

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 3:49 pm

Loydo,

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been estimated to have ranged from 3000 to 7000 ppm with global temperatures generally being no warmer than 25 °C during the interval of 550-380 million years ago. This was the early part of the Paleozoic Era when life florished on Earth.

(ref: graph at https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-over-geological-time-600-mya-Aus-from-HIEB_fig17_325078712 )

So, today we are at about 417 ppm CO2 versus about 280 ppm for (ca. 1800 AD) “pre-industrial” times. That’s a difference of only 137 ppm. That is equivalent to a rise in atmospheric CO2 of only 2.0% compared to the Paleozoic peak of 7000 ppm. Most people would consider 2% as being a “slight increase”.

Or do you simply not care to consider the paleoclimatology of Earth as having relevance to the subject of “climate”?

Now, you were blathering something about “disinformers”, which would include those doing cherry picking to advance an argument . . .

Global-temperature-and-atmospheric-CO2-over-geological-time-600-mya-Aus-from-HIEB.png.jpeg
Last edited 9 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Loydo
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 5, 2021 6:05 pm

Oh, Gordon. How is a lecture about the precambrian got anything to do with what I asked; talk about ‘splainin’ out your arse. Trying to frame a 47% increase as “slight’ is just fraudulent and I am deeply sorry for you that you’ve bought into it.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 6:19 pm

Oh, Loydo. Do you even know how to read a simple graph or to understand a simple sentence???

As anyone can see from the graph that I attached in my previous post, the Cambrian period started at about 590 million years ago . . . and I specifically discussed CO2 levels during the interval of 550-380 million years ago. So, what’s one to make of your reference to “the precambrian” other than outright stupidity in being able to follow facts.

So,thanks Loydo, but your are feeling sorry for the wrong person.

Now, you were saying something about being fraudulent . . .

Last edited 9 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 9:41 pm

CONTEXT!

Dean
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 7, 2021 5:06 am

Better not talk about context if you are trying to score points on Loydo in this case, I think his understanding of the appropriate context is a lot better than Gordon’s.

This is very unusual……

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 5:14 am

Guys don’t worry John Kerry tells us they are making fantastic progress at COP26 they have a greater sense of urgency and there is more money on the table than ever before. See we didn’t need to do anything.

Dean
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 7, 2021 5:03 am

Much as I laugh at Loydo’s ramblings, in this case I think he is onto something.

“Slightly” has no place in a document taking to task the people who authored the SFPM for their use of fuzzy language in misrepresenting the Technical Reports.

It is not clear what basis slightly refers to, however it is reasonable to assume that it does not refer to the past eons where CO2 was at more normal levels in terms of the Earth’s history. Using that as the basis of determining a 2% increase does fit the definition of cherry picking.

The vast majority of people are only aware of CO2 levels over the last few hundred years, using the 280ppm number as the basis for determining the rise would strike a reasonably informed “average” person as reasonable.

Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 4:02 pm

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is 97% of natural origin. Where do you find a disinformation ?
Better ask, as you mention funding, what the billions of dollars or € to fund IPCC and climate research origin is ?

alastair gray
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 4:37 pm

Go and boil your head Lloydo
and bite your bum too

michel
Reply to  alastair gray
November 5, 2021 5:15 pm

This doesn’t help, it lowers the tone of the site, it will not persuade anyone of anything. Its pointless and irritating. One of the things that makes this site stand out is its tolerance of dissent. Don’t descend to personal abuse, just accept that people do argue, sometimes though not always in bad faith, to the contrary of the majority view.

Redge
Reply to  michel
November 6, 2021 1:03 am

+1000

Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 5:12 pm

Loy is replacing the griffter. Loy knows the proper temp and CO2 level for planet earth but he ain’t gonna reveal it.

michel
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 5:45 pm

Loydo is correct as far as it goes. It is true that an increase from 280ppm to 411ppm is an increase of 47%. Its also true that this is a significant, a fairly large, increase, in the quantity in question.

It is also true that quantity is a tiny percentage of the atmosphere in the first place, so its a tiny percentage change in the makeup of the atmosphere.

Suppose there was a very rare disease, one that affects only, for instance, one in two million people every year. Suppose that the incidence slowly rises, so over 20 years or so we find cases have risen in the US from about 100 to about 150.

Its a significant rise in the incidence, but its still probably not a significant disease problem, nor is it a significant change in the disease spectrum in the US.

The underlying question to put to Loydo is the sensitivity parameter. The model of CO2 as control knob of temperature assumes that the 47% rise, or a doubling, is a significant change in the atmosphere. Some people find this implausible in itself, because its such a small change, but that is where the argument starts not where it ends.

The piece is correct (though a bit ironic and provocative) to speak of slightly increased CO2 levels. Its not that the increase is slight. Its that the level (before and after the increase) was and is slight.

BCBill
Reply to  michel
November 5, 2021 8:47 pm

See my discussion above of biological significance. The first step in designing a trial is to come to an understanding of what you would consider to be a biological significant effect and then you design a trial with sufficient power to detect that size of change. A common way to lie with science is to report that no significant differences were found without reporting whether or not the trial had sufficient power to detect the smallest biologically significant effect. Another way to lie is to report that a significant effect was found without any accompanying analysis of whether or not a detected effect alters the system in any meaningful way. One of the many problems with Climate Pseudoscience is the failure to define what temperature change is significant based on objective criteria. As most of the scientific community (not including the pseudoscientific community) is now painfully aware, the various temperature rise thresholds of doom are pure fabrication pulled from some dark hole where the sun doesn’t shine. Discussions of statistical significance are meaningless without an understanding of biological significance.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 6:37 pm

“Check your skepticism at the door and lap it up.”

*******

Loydo, it is obvious to me (and I’m sure many others here) that you have little or no understanding of how scientific discourse is supposed to work. Get this into your head: Theories and hypotheses in science are supposed to be addressed with skepticism.

The skepticism you see here at WUWT is standard operating procedure in science. I believe I recall reading somewhere that the IPCC largely ignores the comments from scientists who attempt to address issues they have with the IPCC reports that the IPCC puts out. That in and of itself says that the IPCC is not exactly functioning as a purely scientific organization; or to put it another way, it is not exactly on the up and up. If the IPCC reports were scientifically sound, WUWT would not be able to poke holes in the climate scare narrative until it looked like a block of Swiss cheese.

I don’t know about you Loydo, but I am not ignorant enough to be believe that many or most U.N. organizations, including the WMO and the IPCC, are beyond corruption. U.N. bureaucrats are not elected, so they are only answerable only to the governments that provide the funding for their operations.

I have little doubt that many of the world’s governments are corrupt. If indeed that is so, there is nothing to stop that corruption from finding its way to every U.N. organization and its bureaucrats, especially since they are not democratically elected. I suggest that many of those government probably want to be at the receiving end of a global wealth redistribution campaign which has already been set up at the U.N. in the name of the climate scare. The wealthy developed countries have already started paying into it. $$$$$ corrupts.

Your belief that the fossil fuel companies are funding the skepticism of the climate alarmist narrative is nothing more than made-up religion if you do not provide significant evidence of it. Otherwise, it is what I call an article of religious faith. Lying and making things up to support your argument is all too easy to do when you are not under pressure to provide that evidence.

Loydo, there is one thing for certain that needs to be checked at the door when participating in commentary here at WUWT. That one thing is ignorance of science and how scientific discourse works. You and others like Griffy-poo only make fools of yourselves when you fail to check your ignorance at the door of this website.

I know all of this, and I am not even a scientist. You can lap that up.

Mr.
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 5, 2021 7:42 pm

The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization.

It is a purely POLITICAL COSTRUCT whose sole charter is to compile and project only sources that support the conjecture that human activities that generate CO2 are the sole source of forcing that drives increasing temperatures throughout the world since ~ 1979.

Do not rely on missives from this organization to contribute anything factual / meaningful to the studies of climate(s) behaviors.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Mr.
November 6, 2021 9:17 am

“The IPCC is NOT a scientific organization.”

No argument from me Mr. In many ways it behaves more like a political organization rather than a scientific one. The problem is that it is widely believed that the IPCC is scientific.

Loydo
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 5, 2021 8:05 pm

“The skepticism you see here at WUWT” is not skepticism at all if it is entirely credulous of the bs that fills this post. Bs like 47% = slight. I’m the only one pointing out what scientific claptrap that is, you and everyone else are champing at the bit to defend it. Soooo skeptical.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 8:41 pm

Loydo, you are not to be believed.

I don’t know what your background (if any) in science is, but it sounds as though you can distinguish between what is science and what isn’t.

I am talking here about the IPCC’s climate claims, not the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If you can explain why there is no valid skeptical science at this website about the IPCC’s climate claims, please provide the explanation.

Treating the climate alarmist narrative as though it is infallible and unquestionable isn’t science. It is religion. I am beginning to wonder if you know the difference.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 9:49 pm

You are not grasping the concept of ‘context!’ It is possible to have relative increases greater than 100% compared to a small base level. However, if the possible range is thousands of percent, it may be insignificant overall.

People like yourself who get excited about big numbers usually don’t really understand the issue.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 5:01 am

Loydo, you are making a process of intention! You are guessing (1) that all people commenting in thi site are “credulous”, (2) that all that people think the same, and thus (3) stamping them collectivelly an assumed negative attribute and so pushing all them out with disdain. Furthermore, you very often deviate the center of the discussion to any other meaningless point, so that the serious exchange of views is interrupted and forgotten.

This atitude is not fair, is disrespectful, is intellectually very, very cheap. From where I stand, this kind of arguments, and this kind of methodology only earn you contempt, and I personally avoid addressing comments or assertions based on them: they make me feel that they are not done in good faith, as a contribution to further the understading of the matters, but rather to crush the opponent and dismiss his ideas. And this was not, never was, the attitude of the real scientists with whom I have worked in the four decades of research career.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 9:43 am

47% of 0.000280 (280 parts per million) is 0.000132 (132 ppm).

In absolute terms, a slight change . . . in relative terms, a substantial change.

The term “slight” is meaningless without defining the context in which it is being used.

Logic 101.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 8:25 pm

If you “check” skepticism, then you also check all valid scientific inquiry. 47% of bugger all is even less than bugger all. The entire world is virtually “fossil fuel funded” and your entire narrative is also fossil fuel funded … at least three orders of magnitude greater than real (skeptical) science.

Graham
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 9:43 pm

REPLY TO Loydo.
THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY.
Read the artical and it states what we have have been telling you and your troll mates for years.
Here is a challenge for you and your troll mates .
If fossil fuels are such a threat to the world you and your mates immediately STOP using them.
Then stop using any food products that has used fossil fuel to be grown or transported to your supermarket.
Then do not purchase any other products that have used fossil fuels in there manufacture.
You have not thought this out,.all you can think is Climate Emergency– Climate Emergency –Climate Emergency .
The world has warmed recovering from the Little Ice Age then the climate scare .
BEWARE ANOTHER ICE AGE IS COMING in the 1970s.
A warmer ocean will out gas CO2 and that is what has been happening.
The climate of this earth is self regulating and can never reach a tipping point .
The effect of CO2 is logarithmic and the present levels are approaching saturation point .
This has been known for over 100 years. More CO2 will not warm the earth very much at all.
The Emergency that is looming up in the near future is a shortage of many things. FOOD ,ENERGY, HOUSING BECAUSE OF THE STUPID LEFT WING POLICIES OF MANY COUNTRIES GOVERNMENTS

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Loydo
November 5, 2021 10:39 pm

“Fossil fuel industry funded, professional disinformers trotting out the weasel words, the zombie myths, the repeatedly debunked talking points and the outright lies.”

Try, just once, to substantiate your claims with objective evidence.

Robert Hanson
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
November 6, 2021 11:58 am

Leftist propagandists always accuse others of what they themselves are doing. And this one sentence is a classic example: “Fossil fuel industry funded, professional disinformers trotting out the weasel words, the zombie myths, the repeatedly debunked talking points and the outright lies.”

“Fossil fuel industry funded” Well, the Annual Budget of the Sierra Club is $100 MILLION dollars, and they are only one of thousands of NGOs pushing the alarmist hoax. Then there are the literally Billions of tax $, which Bai Den wants to increase to hundreds of Billions, spent on the CC scam. The under the table $ from other countries ranging from China to Qatar to both members of Congress to most likely NGOs that promote their agenda.

“professional disinformers trotting out the weasel words” That clearly describes Michael Mann, alGore, virtually everyone working at CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the NYT, all of the University “climate scientists” (sic).

“repeatedly debunked talking points and the outright lies” Like for instance worst floods ever, most wild fires ever, greatly increasing hurricanes, death of the GBR, etc.

Like they say on the schoolyard at recess “I know you are Loydo, but what am I?” 🙂

PCman999
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 12:19 am

CO2 is roughly a third or a quarter of what it was through the hundreds of millions of years during the time of the reptiles and dinosaurs, when the earth was a paradise teeming with life.

The earth has just barely started to warm up and green up and you would prefer that stop, and that we tear up the world covering it in turbines and solar panels, and pollute the seas and disrupt the fish with their floating versions?

I can’t believe how reckless and violent so-called environmentalists have been towards the environment.

PCman999
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 1:03 am

Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) is an independent foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok.

http://www.clintel.org

Go to their site Loydo and get rid of your disinformation and fill up on information.

Mike Sexton
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 5:52 am

Show me the SEC filings from the FF companies that show they are funding what you’re saying
They have to disclose that information
Show me the money or shut up about it

Alba
Reply to  Loydo
November 6, 2021 11:26 am

Loydo,

I think that for everybody’s benefit you should come clean on your figure of 47%. 47% of what and since when?
There seems to be some difference of interpretation. On the one hand there is reference to the extent of CO2 in the atmosphere. eg. “0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere.” Then there is a matter of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which is, perhaps, what you are talking about.
But the key question is what the CLINTEL report was talking about. You can only claim that their ‘slight’ is wrong if you can prove they are referring to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rather than the extent.
As for ‘fossil fuel industry funded’, please supply supporting evidence.
As for ‘professional disinformers’ please supply supporting evidence.
As for ‘repeatedly debunked’, repeatedly debunked by whom? It would not be by professional climate alarmists, would it?
Outright lies? Any evidence? Be careful to avoid mistaking ‘lie’ for ‘error’.

J Mac
November 5, 2021 2:40 pm

This is a realistic summation of the latest IPCC tome and a damning synopsis of their lack of scientific integrity. Thanks for posting it!

Rud Istvan
November 5, 2021 2:47 pm

All true, but irrelevant. SPM is a political rather than scientific document. So it asserts the politically rather than scientifically correct views. IPCC knows this. That is why they create a SPM.

The bigger point is not where SPM1 differs from WG1, but rather where WG1 ‘science’ and its past predictions differs from observations:
Models oversensitive because parameterization drags in faulty attribution.
CMIP6 worse, not better, than CMIP5–less ECS convergence.
Sea level rise not accelerating.
Arctic summer sea ice not ‘death spiraling’; still about 4 Wadhams minimum.
No increase in weather extremes.
Glacier National Park still has glaciers.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 5, 2021 4:08 pm

Meanwhile the Averagers average and average and average, and look for “trends” in a meaningless number.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 5, 2021 8:57 pm

What gets me, Carlo, is when they interpolate (average) virtual “readings” from measured readings and then “average” the virtual “readings”. Then they smugly pronounce their findings as though they were in some way meaningful of something. The entire readout from their models is so many steps removed from empirical data I wonder how any scientist can take it seriously. It’s all just clutter.

AndyHce
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 5, 2021 7:22 pm

A search on wadham brings up all sorts of places and people and organizations but no units of measure.

Mark BLR
Reply to  AndyHce
November 6, 2021 4:05 am

… but no units of measure

One of the earliest mentions that I found was at No Tricks Zone :
https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/17/arctic-ice-stabilized-over-past-10-years-sea-surface-temps-plummet-3c-with-approaching-la-nina/

That article ended with :

Currently the ice area is well over 4 Wadhams (1 million sq kilometers) thick. (One reader suggested using “Wadhams” as a unit for sea ice area in order to honor Peter Wadhams’s spectacularly failed prediction of an ice free Arctic by now.)

That “suggestion” has popped up in various locations to point out “in jest” that an ice-free (less than 1 million square-kilometres of 15% coverage) Arctic summer — the outcome that Peter Wadhams first (?) said was “inevitable, and soon” around 2008 — has still not occurred.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 6, 2021 8:10 am

It’s amazing that they define “ice free” as less than 1m square kms since that almost equates to the total size of France (661,000 sq km) and Germany (357,888 sq km)

Although I think someone might notice if they disappeared from Europe. 🙂

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Rud Istvan
November 5, 2021 8:51 pm

I think you’re missing the point of the entire exercise. From the outset the SPM has been the only important document. It is what the IPPC was created for. All the pretentious “science” is just an incredibly expensive form of window dressing, a red herring to placate the public and the useful idiots. Learning that fact is the main reason why legitimate scientists like Richard Lindzen and Judith Curry distanced themselves from the whole goat rodeo. The science is the least important part of the IPCC.

ATheoK
Reply to  Rory Forbes
November 6, 2021 6:52 pm

Especially since after the activists and politicians agree on their concept of the SPM, the scientists have to go back and make their chapters match the SPM, or at least look like the SPM.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  ATheoK
November 6, 2021 8:16 pm

Which is why we still have the hockey stick, the “son of hockey stick” and possibly the “great grandson on hockey stick”. Actual scientists utterly destroyed it; book, chapter and verse. The SPM loved it … so new “scientists” kept resurrecting it.

Hell, sensible people have known for 30 years that it is just political window dressing. The accuracy of the “science” is unimportant.

Gordon A. Dressler
November 5, 2021 3:07 pm

And who, really, actually believes the IPCC would listen to rational arguments or objectively examine data that conflicts with their stated role, to wit:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”—source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/09/ipcc-principles.pdf (my underlining emphasis added)

From its founding, the IPCC has had an agenda to look for humans to be the factor responsible for climate change . . . anything arising outside of human origin (i.e., occurring naturally) that could be responsible for climate changing was not to be examined because it was “out of scope”.

The IPCC has stayed true to its charter . . . much to the detriment of science.

And the IPCC would never conclude that humans play a very minor or insignificant role in climate change because that would mean the panel has no further reason to exist.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 5, 2021 3:36 pm

Actually, the real IPCC reports, as written by ‘scientists’ (I use the term advisedly) demonstrate no actual reason for alarm. It’s just the Summaries for Policy Makers that is written by politicians that manufacture a bogus reason for alarm. That’s because it’s what those politicians want, so that they are able to push through their political agenda in order to ‘solve’ the problem they invented.

The genius of it is that since the ‘problem’ doesn’t exist, they will be able to claim that their ‘solution’ fixed it. To prevent that, all we need to do it stop the ‘solution’ from being implemented. The win-win is that preventing the ‘solution’ will save a whole lot of lives and an inconceivable amount of money and resources.

Last edited 9 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 5, 2021 4:05 pm

Zig Zag Wanderer, you posted:

“It’s just the Summaries for Policy Makers that is written by politicians that . . .”

Huh? A subset of the IPCC “scientists” who combine to write the overall Assessment Reports are the ones that write the SPMs.

Did you mean to say: “It’s just the Summaries for Policy Makers that is written for politicians that . . .”?  

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 5, 2021 10:49 pm

Huh? A subset of the IPCC “scientists” who combine to write the overall Assessment Reports are the ones that write the SPMs

From the IPCC themselves:

The form is approved line by line by governments: “Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy.”

I guess that technically you can claim that it’s not actually written by politicians, but in reality, it is.

Last edited 9 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 6, 2021 7:31 am

“Approving” is NOT the same thing as “authoring”.

— any good dictionary.

lee
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 5, 2021 10:53 pm

That would make the “scientists” who write the SPM, with which the science has to be changed to agree, even more culpable.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  lee
November 5, 2021 11:03 pm

That would make the “scientists” who write the SPM, with which the science has to be changed to agree, even more culpable.

Yes, I believe they are. See my response to Gordon above. The politicians ‘approve’ every line.

If your income is derived from governments who are ‘approving’ every line of the SPM, you can be sure that you’ll make the SPM say what the governments concerned want it to say, or lose your funding. It really is that simple.

Don’t ever let it be forgotten that several scientists with a good grasp of ethics have resigned from the IPCC panels in protest.

Last edited 9 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Steve Case
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
November 5, 2021 5:38 pm

Thanks for the emphasis on this line from the IPCC charter:

risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The terms risk, impact and mitigation all indicate that the charter is directing the IPCC to find negative aspects of climate change. 

Indeed CLINTEL notes: 

“We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM … fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.”

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steve Case
November 5, 2021 9:04 pm

The terms risk, impact and mitigation all indicate that the charter is directing the IPCC to find negative aspects of climate change.

Yes exactly … and that is its only purpose. The science is the red herring thrown in to make it appear legitimate. It’s a giant money laundering project to milk successful countries revenue to fund the UN for the purposes of setting up a UN headed world government. They believe they are entitled, after all.

Bevan
November 5, 2021 3:57 pm

Analysis of the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 data through to September 2021 clearly shows that CO2 has not caused warming in the Tropics but that the temperature determines the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2. It is so definite that even the fall in temperature due to the Moon passing between the Sun and the Earth is reflected in the rate of generation of CO2. My mathematical analysis may be seen on my web site at:

https://climateauditor.com/mauna-loa-observatory

CO2 has not caused global warming or climate change. It is a response to the climate change.

Chris Hanley
November 5, 2021 5:41 pm

The IPCC resembles a religious body and its conferences are like the synods of early Christian sects that Gibbon (‘Decline and Fall’), dismissive of the Byzantine Empire for replacing the heritage of the Plato and Aristotle with petty religious squabbles, describes as consumed with ‘nonsense and falsehood’.

Sunshine
November 5, 2021 11:32 pm

Regardless of the issue at hand, they now know they can submit the majority of the people via emotion and it starts with terror and leads to submission. Fortunately, the climate is no longer one of the main worries. And that is a huge loss never to be recovered, I hope.

Captain climate
November 6, 2021 2:38 am

When I tell friends the SPM doesn’t bear any resemblance to the thousands of pages of science in the report, they don’t believe me. It’s a con hiding in plain sight.

I really wish we could get one honest reporter to cover this. But they won’t because everything is rotten to the core.

Mark BLR
November 6, 2021 4:48 am

The CMIP6 climate models are even more sensitive than the already overly-sensitive CMIP5 models of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence of low climate sensitivity.

As pointed out by other posters the “agreed line-by-line by governmental participants” SPM does not reflect the contents of the full “by scientists only” report.

In addition the “Final Draft” AR6 report released in September only has “placeholders” for figures, which are grouped at the end of each chapter’s PDF file, which slows down comprehension as you have to “jump back and forth” to see what they’re actually talking about.

From section 7.5.6, “Considerations on the ECS and TCR in global climate models and their role in the assessment”, on page 7-115 :

It is problematic and not obviously constructive to provide weights for, or rule out, individual CMIP6 model ensemble members based solely on their ECS and TCR values. Rather these models must be tested in a like-with-like way against observational evidence. Based on the currently published CMIP6 models we provide such an analysis, marking models with ECS above and below the assessed very likely range (Figure 7.19). In the long term historical warming (Figure 7.19a) both low and high ECS models are able to match the observed warming, presumably in part as a result of compensating aerosol cooling (Kiehl, 2007; Forster et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2021). In several cases of high ECS models that apply strong aerosol cooling it is found to result in surface warming and ocean heat uptake evolutions that are inconsistent with observations (Golaz et al., 2019b; Andrews et al., 2020; Winton et al., 2020). Modelled warming since the 1970s is less influenced by compensation between climate sensitivity and aerosol cooling (Jiménez-de-la-Cuesta and Mauritsen, 2019; Nijsse et al., 2020) resulting in the high ECS models in general warming more than observed, whereas low sensitivity models mostly perform better (Figure 7.19b); a result that may also have been influenced by temporary pattern effects (Sections 7.4.4 and 7.5.4).

“Jumping” to page 7-198 one can “see” just how bad the “post 1975” simulations are for “ECS>5.0” CMIP6 models (in “Figure 7.19b”) …

Screenshot_AR6_Figure-7-19.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  Mark BLR
November 6, 2021 4:53 am

PS : Another interesting admission can be found on “FAQ 7.3, Figure 1” on page 7-204.

“3 But projections in this assessment do not solely rely on models” …

Screenshot_AR6_FAQ-7-3-Figure-1.png
DocSiders
November 6, 2021 5:54 am

The “Climate Science” “community” did not concoct this fraud all on its own. Powerful Globalists are on the lookout for “Global” problems that have (in propaganda speak) “only Global Solutions”… Two main issues lately are Covid and Climate. Those powerful Globalists control most of the Press Internationally and most of Science Funding and almost all Science Publications…and ALL the Western Government “Apparatus” (unelected Deep State) gladly works alongside them.

Like the Mafia, they reward Very Well those who work with them and destroy (or worse) all the rest.

Bruce Cobb
November 6, 2021 7:33 am

Sorry, but #1 of the six key areas turns the null hypothesis on its head. Whatever anthropogenic influence there has been is only in theory, and is likely too small to ever pinpoint, much less matter.

November 6, 2021 11:58 am

COP 26: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Never in the field of human history has so much complete nonsense been spoken at one place by so many. Apocalyptic forecasts and imaginary impossible non -solutions to a non existent problem provide a cacophony of Blah, Blah ,Blah, Blah,Blah as Greta correctly said or as Johnson said “Humanity has long since run down the clock on climate change. It’s one minute to midnight on that doomsday clock and we need to act now,”
The West’s Main Stream Media notably the BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, NBC ,ABC, CBS,PBS and the US Cable networks have been the greatest propagators of this blizzard of misinformation. They have produced a generation of scared and psychologically disturbed teenagers and green fanatics who believe that the world has no future if fossil fuels continue to be used.
The whole COP 26 Net Zero campaign is founded on the IPCC published model forecasts of coming dangerous temperature increases  A very large majority of the consensus establishment  climate scientists have succumbed to a virulent infectious disease – the CO2 Derangement Syndrome. Those afflicted by this syndrome present with a spectrum of symptoms .
The first is the abandonment of any consideration of the thermodynamics of energy flows, the different energy densities of the different energy sources or the extreme difficulty of transitioning from the reliable high density power of f0ssil fuels to the diffuse inconstant power of solar and wind systems or the entropy losses inherent in suggested hydrogen systems.  Critical thinking capacity is badly degraded.  Intellectual hubris, confirmation bias, group think, the messiah complex and a need to feel at once powerful and at the same time morally self-righteous caused those worst affected to delude first themselves, then politicians, governments, the politically correct chattering classes and almost the entire UK and US media that anthropogenic CO2 was the main climate driver. This led governments to introduce policies which have wasted trillions of dollars in a quixotic and futile attempt to control earth’s temperature by reducing CO2 emissions.
The second is a total inability to recognize the most obvious Millennial and 60 year emergent cyclic patterns which are trivially obvious in the astronomic data , and in solar activity and drive earth’s temperature with a delay caused by the oceanic temperature inertia.
Here is the Abstract of my paper at
 http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2021/08/c02-solar-activity-and-temperature.html
Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy.  We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur.  

November 6, 2021 5:49 pm

The latest geoengineering talk is of increasing the salinity of the Arctic seas by blocking river discharge to the Arctic, including to the big Russian north flowing rivers the Lena, Ob and Yenisei:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-019-1755-y

Anyone here connected with policy people – can you tell us how far advanced plans already are for the invasion of Russia to save the climate? Presumably it will begin with a pre-emptive nuclear strike? The pre-war vilification is of course well underway.

Dean
November 7, 2021 5:11 am

For the love of God, get rid of that superfluous word “slightly” in your second sentence.

There is no need for it and you are making the same mistake that the warmistas do. Using fluffy words to try to help your argument.

November 15, 2021 4:56 pm

The World has closed the Climate Train Ride Special on the AGW Line.  In 2021 the Global Climate Warming gravy train was shut down due to a lack of paying riders.  The poor countries were hanging on under the club cars but were sent scurrying for the hills by the yard workers because they wanted payments from the Global Club whenever bad weather hit them. And for paying riders whose credit ran out, it’s all out at the Glasgow station; and you can find your own private jet ride home.

%d bloggers like this: