IPCC AR6 SPM Credibility Destroyed by “Disappearing” Medieval Warming Period.

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) has cataloged significant errors in the UN IPCC AR6 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) and distributed this error listing and analysis to the IPCC Chair and other world leaders to inform them of these errors. 

The identified errors result in the SPM failing to meet standards of objective scientific integrity and therefore misleads world leaders regarding appropriate climate policy by erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality. The seriously flawed SPM is “inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation” would be much more appropriate.

The significant errors are grouped into six key areas noted in the CLINTEL report as follows:

The SPM claim that human influence alone has warmed the planet is “unequivocal” is false with this claim ignoring natural climate influences including impacts of solar variability, natural events such as ENSO, El Niño, La Niña, AMO, PDO, etc. as well as impacts from geomagnetic storms, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions in addition to other areas of evidence addressed in the CLINTEL report that have been systematically ignored by the IPCC as shown in the summary below.    

Most significantly flawed statistical schemes (attribution to “unequivocal” based on “major advances in science of attribution” claim) have been relied upon by the IPCC to support the “unequivocal” assertion with these schemes questioned by world renowned statistics experts Dr. Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre. These challenges require further evaluation by the IPCC SPM climate alarmist advocates.

This highly questionable “unequivocal” assertion contaminates all SPM claims across the six key areas of review as reflected in the use again and again of the flawed terms “human caused”, ”human-induced” and “human influenced”. 

A portion of the CLINTEL summary rejecting the SPM “unequivocal” claim is provided below.

The CLINTEL report provides further examination of the issues noted above related to “human influence” and then addresses the statistical errors used in the “unequivocal” attribution claim as follows:

The CLINTEL report concludes:

“Thus, the opening attribution statement in the SPM “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”is not scientifically robust. Additionally, the omission of any serious attempt to investigate any other explanations of climate change reflects a lack of IPCC open thinking and objectivity.” 

The AR6 SPM utilizes flawed statistics to reinvent the phony “hockey stick” all over again to hide natural temperature climate variability over the last 2,000 years as identified in the CLINTEL report which notes the complete exclusion of the extensive and well established Medieval Warming Period peer reviewed proven data and studies in addition to ignoring the Minoan and Roman Warming Periods data and studies as well.

An example of one of the numerous peer reviewed temperature reconstructions that document these well-established warming periods in shown below.

Looking at what the IPCC has done with the AR6 SPM “hockey stick” brings back memories of the IPCC “Hide the decline” trick debacle back in the climate science Watergate era that exposed climate alarmist “scientist” data manipulation shenanigans (recognizing that the nature of the “tricks” used in the hide the decline debacle is different than the statistical “tricks” used in the AR6 SPM report) as shown below.

The CLINTEL report addresses the SPM misrepresentation of climate temperature reconstruction data over the period of the last 2,000 years as shown in their summary below.

The CLINTEL report concludes:     

“It is concluded that the “hockey-stick” presented in the SPM has no rigorous scientific basis and misrepresents climate variability over the last two millennia. As a corollary, it cannot be asserted that recent climate variations are “unprecedented”.

The UN IPCC AR6 SPM “disappearing” the Medieval Warming Period is such an egregiously flawed climate alarmist propaganda scheme that it deserves a much higher level of scientific scrutiny and public attention. 

The Medieval Warming Period is scientifically proven beyond doubt as presented (top photo) in numerous paleoclimate surface temperature reconstructions including by Dr. Judith Curry as shown in the comparison below which clearly displays the huge manipulated distortion in temperature reconstruction data present in the IPCC SPM over the last 2,000 years (bottom photo).

Additionally in an article at JoNova a summary of a just a few of the many global-wide paleoclimate surface temperature reconstructions are provided which clearly establish the idiocy of trying to deny that the Medieval Warming Period existed as done in the IPCC AR6 SPM. 

That the IPCC Medieval Warming Period denial is based on absurdly contrived and flawed statistical “tricks” by politically driven climate alarmist authors who arrogantly believe their “tricks” are superior to and trump decades of global data collected and analyzed by dozens of peer-reviewed and published studies is simply astounding as clearly demonstrated by the Medieval Period data and studies from the JoNova article shown below. This article was first written in 2019 but is entirely relevant now considering the AR6 SPM warming period deceptions.

The JoNova article then provides a summary of just a few of the massive number of peered reviewed scientific data and studies that unequivocally supports the extraordinary climate variability of the last two millennia including the Medieval Warming Period which the UN IPCC tries to “disappear” by use of flawed statistical “tricks” addressed by Dr. McKitrick and Steve McIntyre in the CLINTEL report.

The fact that the UN IPCC would undertake such a colossally underhanded and erroneously flawed scheme as denying the unequivocal scientifically established credibility of the Medieval Warming Period that drove climate variability over the last two millennia reveals their desperate attempt to justify contrived and ludicrous phony “climate crisis” propaganda claims with this action clearly supporting that the SPM fails to meet standards of “objective scientific integrity.”

Additionally, the huge global-wide preponderance of peer reviewed scientific temperature reconstruction studies unequivocally supporting the existence of the Medieval Warming Period (as well as the Minoan and Roman Warming Periods) clearly constitutes proof that the statistical schemes and “tricks” utilized by the IPCC to “disappear” this warming period must be judged as being flawed and false.    

This blatant act of “disappearing” the Medieval Warming Period reveals the politically motivated lack of climate science competence and integrity of the entire UN IPCC AR6 report and process and clearly displays that the IPCC promotes the politicalization of climate alarmist propaganda as its goal even if it means falsely rejecting, distorting and manipulating well established and proven peer reviewed scientific data.

The AR6 SPM was deliberately manipulated to meet alarmist political goals that would support the COP26 efforts to falsely mandate global nations to abandon fossil fuels and embrace excessive and costly use of unreliable, nondispatchable and backup power reliant renewable energy.

Fortunately, this scheme completely failed and the developing nations (led by China and India) controlled the outcome of COP26 by refusing to meet these economically destructive, scientifically flawed and purely climate alarmist contrived demands.             

The CLINTEL report next addresses the SPM misrepresentations (again note the use of the terms “human-induced” and ”human influence”) regarding extreme weather as summarized below with the CLINTEL criticisms contained in the summary further expanded upon in more detail in their report.

The CLINTEL report notes that the draft AR6 WG1 is inconsistent with the SPM claims regarding flooding noting that “there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on a global scale”, that ”heavier rainfall does not always lead to greater flooding” and “the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrences across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone” as well as  “Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends.”         

The report notes that “Perhaps the best overview of weather events since the last Ice Age is given in HH Lamb’s classic “Climate, History and the Modern World”, first published in 1982, reprinted many times since then. It also documented extreme weather events in the global cooling period of the 1960s and 1970s. This book alone leaves little doubt that modern-day so-called “extreme weather” events are not at all unprecedented.”

“As a conclusion, the SPM misrepresents the detailed findings on extreme events.” 

The CLINTEL report next addresses the SPM misrepresentations (again note the use of the term “human influence”) of developments in Cryosphere as summarized below.

Dr. Curry in her presentation provided data addressing the long-term behavior of Arctic higher temperatures over the last 2,000 years as shown below with even higher Arctic temperatures occurring in the Holocene Thermal Optimum period 4,000 to 8,000 years ago.

The Antarctica, Greenland and Glaciers are summarized in the CLINTEL report sections below.

“In conclusion, the claimed changes in the cryosphere are not borne out by observations.”

The CLINTEL report next addresses SPM misrepresentations (again note the use of the terms “human influence” and “human Influences”) of developments in the Oceans.

Dr. Curry in her presentation specifically addresses the flawed claim that “human influence” is the main driver of acceleration in sea level rise since 1971 as shown in her graph below.

NOAA tide gauge data continues to support the outcome “that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be between 1.7 to 1.8 mm/yr.” as noted in their document shown below. This level of global sea level rise is consistent with the CLINTEL GMSL rise as discussed above in their report which rejects claims of sea level rising at a faster rate than in the last 3.000 years.   

Media hyped claims of Maldives & Pacific-Indian Ocean Island catastrophic sea level rise are unfounded as shown below from the report.

Regarding Ocean Warming and Acidification the CLINTEL reports notes:

“In conclusion, claims concerning rising sea levels, warming and acidity are misrepresented.”  

The CLINTEL report next addresses SPM misrepresentations of oversensitivity of climate models.

Concerning satellite-observed tropospheric temperature trends the CLINTEL report notes:

The CLINTEL report includes a brief comment on the importance of adaptation versus mitigation as follows:

4.9 32 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alexander Vissers
February 15, 2022 2:19 am

Heartwarming. Science has no summary for policy makers. Panel science is no science at all. It is not so much the scientific integrity of the scientists but of the public relations guys wanting to communicate a message and IPCC management wanting to promote their organisations relevance, to come up with a summary for policy makers in the first place.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 15, 2022 2:25 am

It will fall on deaf ears, I’m afraid. Some individual contributors to its reports may act in good faith, the IPCC as an institution is not. It is a political body with its own biased agenda.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 15, 2022 5:03 am

And pay no attention to the tree stumps and other artifacts emerging from under melting glaciers.

Reply to  Scissor
February 15, 2022 1:20 pm

“Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope
Under that garbage.”

David A
Reply to  Scissor
February 15, 2022 3:23 pm

When there is this much documented per reviewed CAGW skeptic papers, where do the alarmist comments go.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 15, 2022 10:59 am

pointless you are dealing with fools having a nice life in Geneva.
They are religious, but instead of Calvin they went for “the planet” religion.
Calvin had to deal with the POPE

You waste your time even sending them a missive.
The IPCC is far worse than the Pope, he only had Europe wide influence.
(helped by the Medicis et al)

Next stage is public burning of heretics at the stake.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  pigs_in_space
February 15, 2022 12:37 pm

You waste your time even sending them a missive.

Then what would you suggest? Roll over and play dead? Let them ruin civilization without even attempting to push back?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 15, 2022 1:55 pm

Spot on Clyde.

For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.

Simon Wiesenthal

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 15, 2022 1:51 pm

Is it time for a Grand Jury investigation of the IPCC, similar to the model that Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer are now orchestrating for all of the world to see?
This would be an excellent way to educate and set the stage for the takedown of the key players behind the mitigation efforts like industrial scale wind turbines, who used regulatory capture to foist the incursion of massive wind turbines on rural residents without demonstrable justification, proper cost benefit analysis and health studies.

February 15, 2022 2:27 am

Paragraph 2 “…. erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does exist in reality.” Insert the word ‘not’, perhaps. 🤪

Ron Long
February 15, 2022 2:45 am

Large collection of good data and comments. The IPCC is “an Intergovermental body of the United Nations, and gives reports to 3 Working Groups in the United Nations, including the Working Group 3: Mitigation of Climate Change. Therefore the mission of the IPCC is to induce sufficient fear in the masses that the United Nations gets empowered to fight against the evil CO2. How? The world elite want the United Nations to create the political environment where they collect tax money and utilize it to mitigate, like windmills, Carbon Credits, grand (expensive) meetings, etc. The Biden administration has told the Military to fight against Climate Change, maybe they are to busy to defend Ukraine? Looks like we will see shortly.

February 15, 2022 2:54 am

“The identified errors result in the SPM failing to meet standards of objective scientific integrity and therefore misleads world leaders regarding appropriate climate policy by erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does exist in reality. “

But then, they knew all this and still published. Because, ultimately no media outlet will run anything counter to the narrative. Take Steven Koonin’s latest book which illustrates the real state of climate science…

“The article is not really a review, their substantive claims are very weak, it is really a hit piece to trash Koonin and his reputation “….


So who wrote this hit piece?

“That ‘Obama Scientist’ Climate Skeptic You’ve Been Hearing About …

Naomi Oreskes, Michael E. Mann, Gernot Wagner, Don Wuebbles, Andrew Dessler, Andrea Dutton, Geoffrey Supran, Matthew Huber, Thomas Lovejoy, Ilissa Ocko, Peter C. Frumhoff, Joel Clement”

When it comes to the science, Koonin cherry-picks and misrepresents outdated material to downplay the seriousness of the climate crisis. In April, climate scientists fact-checked Koonin’s claims as encapsulated in a Wall Street Journal review, and found them to be highly misleading.


It’s just ad-homs, and you can see literally the venom dripping…

“Koonin isn’t lying about having worked for the Obama administration, but he’s certainly trying to portray himself as something better than he is: a crank who’s only taken seriously by far-right disinformation peddlers hungry for anything they can use to score political points. He’s just another denier trying to sell a book. “

Nice people, eh.

I would like to believe that someone will take all the errors and mistakes seriously. But I doubt they will – openly.

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
Reply to  fretslider
February 15, 2022 4:50 am

For me the funniest part of your link is right below the headline:

His track record on getting climate science right is extremely poor

Enough said

Doug S
Reply to  fretslider
February 15, 2022 4:53 am

Very well stated, agree completely. I enjoyed watching Dr. Koonin and Joe Rogan having a discussion yesterday on Rogan’s Spotify channel. Highly recommend that talk to others but trigger warning: if you’re a pants on fire alarmist best move on.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fretslider
February 16, 2022 3:28 am

Thanks for that detailed analysis, fretslider.

Dishonest alarmists have nothing. All they can do is try to assasinate the character of the CO2 Truth Tellers.

February 15, 2022 3:22 am

The populist zeitgeist still remains in support of climate alarmists blah, blah, blah.
As the costs associated with NetZero policies are enhanced by overall economic problems, added to people noticing their cost of living inflating, that populist support will begin to say…’hang on a minute, where’s my bloody money gone’

The biggest ally we have in changing the public attitude to alarmism is the economy, oh stupid ones. Then the science expressed in this excellent article will be taken on board.
The fooled wont stay fooled forever.

Once again, can I ask UK citizens to sign and circulate this petition…_

Reply to  DiggerUK
February 15, 2022 4:36 am

I signed it weeks ago and today it has still only 21,856 signatures. The petition idea sounds great on paper but it’s merely a pressure relief valve. Should the petition garner another 78,144 signatures then the snouts in the trough (all signed up to net zero) will discuss the matter and then…. that’s it.

No change.

At the next election you will have a choice between, net zero, net zero, and net zero

Reply to  fretslider
February 15, 2022 4:51 am

At the next election you will have a choice between, net zero, net zero, and net zero

Number of brain cells per candidate?

Reply to  fretslider
February 15, 2022 5:10 am

Don’t be so pessimistic. 20+ years ago I was with the ecopaths, then the pennies began to drop. Now I’m a confirmed denier of their nonsense.
The british tory party has a huge problem today with members totally opposed to NetZero policies. Who would have thought twenty years ago that a tory government would even be considering an alarmist agenda, let alone pushing one.
As an active member of the Labour Party I can assure you that there are questions being raised about the nonsense. The main reason is with the rising numbers in fuel poverty. I acknowledge it is a very small percentage, but I know reality will prevail in the end.

The liberals, scotnats,and greens are just ecopaths. But then again, so were Zion Lights, James Lovelock and Bjorn Lomborg. Be an optimist…_


Last edited 1 year ago by DiggerUK
Reply to  DiggerUK
February 15, 2022 5:24 am

You can be optimistic and still state the truth about their petitions. They aren’t the way to go, obviously.

Reply to  fretslider
February 15, 2022 6:05 am

For those of us who live in Scotland it will be a choice between SNP net zero, Conservative net zero, Labour net zero, Green net zero and Lib Dem net zero.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Alba
February 15, 2022 7:02 am

Which all add up to ….

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
February 15, 2022 8:00 am

misery and death

Ben Vorlich
February 15, 2022 3:25 am

This is one of my favourite resources. MWP research with several thousand research papers documented globally.


Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 15, 2022 9:12 am

Come on, this is not fair. As someone who has been on an obsessive mission for a decade to find evidence of Global MVP, this is almost overwhelming. I have a lot of reading ahead now. But, I’ll take it. Seriously, thanks for the link. I can’t believe this escaped me for so long since I’ve seen similar links but never with so many studies.

From my own research I know that there are many studies finding local conditions consistent with the MWP. Just like everything else, if you dig deep enough and seek out the research, the consensus narrative is BS.

Reply to  cerescokid
February 15, 2022 9:21 am

A nice site too for a lot of sources 😀 you may want to read 😀

Last edited 1 year ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
February 15, 2022 9:45 am

That is a great site. What happens when you combine all of those local timeseries into a global average timeseries?

Reply to  bdgwx
February 15, 2022 10:55 am

What happens when you demonstrate that such a global averaged time series is pretty much meaningless?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2022 11:51 am

local daily average -> local monthly avg -> local annual avg -> global annual avg

An average of an average of an average of an average

More and more actual data gets lost with each average. By the time you get to the global annual average it really tells you almost nothing about what is really happening.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 15, 2022 1:24 pm

Anyone who believes that we can get an accurate average of daily temperatures by knowing just the daily high and the daily low, is probably a climate scientist.

Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2022 12:43 pm

That would undermine the argument put forth in this article.

Reply to  bdgwx
February 15, 2022 1:23 pm

Everywhere we looked, we can see that the world warmed during the MWP. Trying to say exactly how much the world warmed is more difficult.
We can also demonstrate both the Little Ice Age and the warm up from it the same way.
Trying to claim that you can measure the actual temperature of the entire world down to 0.01C by taking a few thousand measurements in Europe and the east coast of N. America plus a few hundred sea temperature readings in the N. Atlantic, is a fools errand. But since a lot of fools make their living from such nonsense, we will keep seeing it for quite a while.

Reply to  MarkW
February 16, 2022 7:32 am

Everywhere we looked, we can see that the world warmed during the MWP.”

Yah, bd. We don’t need no stinkin’ commie arithmetic. We can see it.


Richard Brown
February 15, 2022 3:51 am

A very timely report indeed!
I shall be providing a link in my complaint email to the BBC.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Richard Brown
February 15, 2022 4:11 am

Good luck, but I suspect you’ll only be told that the concensus is that all scientists agree that the climate emergency is 100% manmade and unless something is done by next month it’s all too late.

Michael in Dublin
February 15, 2022 4:19 am

Thanks to CLINTEL for their excellent work.

This was sent to the chair of the IPCC sixteen weeks ago.

Was CLINTEL sent an acknowledgement of the receipt of this evaluation?
Was any indication given of when they would repond in detail?
Was there any invitation for a CLINTEL team to meet for further discussion?

If the IPCC is really so concerned about honestly addressing the climate issue they should welcome contributions like those of CLINTEL.

February 15, 2022 5:14 am

As I understand it the SPM was published while the main report was still a draft. That alone should sink its credibility.

Reply to  DaveS
February 15, 2022 8:02 am

In previous reports, chapter author’s were instructed to change their chapter summaries in order to match the SPM.

Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2022 10:59 am

They should call it Summary Policy Machinations..

Boff Doff
February 15, 2022 5:20 am

So CAGW is a crock. We get it and it gets more obvious every day. The questions that really need answering are: who is behind it, what is their real objective and why are so many otherwise honest people are going along with it? I can’t just be Winston Zeddemore Syndrome!

Reply to  Boff Doff
February 15, 2022 6:04 am

Perhaps you start by providing us an honest CAGW believer and be careful we don’t want someone who has just been fooled.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Boff Doff
February 16, 2022 4:08 am

“and why are so many otherwise honest people are going along with it?”

I think if they are honest people, then they have been fooled into believing things that are not true about CO2 and the climate.

The dishonest people have many motives for supporting the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

The Human-caused Climate Change hoax is now being used as a means of controlling all aspects of people’s lives.

February 15, 2022 5:57 am

All those personally-generated temperature charts that the fearful grants seekers come up with are missing a very REAL and very important item: Hoomans adjust their clothing according to what the freaking weather is like. The Little Ice Age had women wearing 7 petticoats, plus a long-sleeved chemise, plus a bodicer (corset), plus heavily insulated/lined outer garments such as layers of skirts over those petticoats.

I can personally confirm that, on a cold, rainy day when the weather changed from warm and sunny to cold and rainy and the temperature dropped 20F degrees in the blink of an eye, wearing three petticoats over a hoop, plus the underdress (a shift), plus the overskirt and the forepart AND those puffy sleeves, did a great deal to keep me warm while the cold wind blew out of the north. That was at the Renaissance Faire a few years ago, and I have photos of that get-up.

A good example of it all, just for women, is found here:

The puffed sleeves worn by Elizabeth I were not just a fashion statement: they were stuffed with insulating materials like wool. Men dressed the same way: pumpkin pants were poofed out to keep a gentleman warm, but the filling was usually grain like oats or wheat. They also wore hosen and boots that covered their legs up to a few inches short of the pumpkin pants.

Frankly, the lower classes, e.g., merchants and peasants in general, did the same things. Capes were not for appearances’ sake: they were to keep you warm. There’s a GOOD reason that a gentleman wore boots halfway up his thighs: they kept the cold out while the “pumpkin:” pants also kept him warm.

There are good examples of clothing of the same kind in the Spanish court, from the same period. To say that the Little Ice Age did not happen is preposterous. You don’t overload yourself with layers of fabric to puff off your status: you do it to stay warm, for Pete’s sake!!! Even the peasants were well-clothed.

Likewise, you don’t build enormous fireplaces in your home for the sole purpose of roasting a wild boar or a deer after a hunt: you have that to cook and to keep the place warm. Originally, kitchens in homes had huge fireplaces to cook and bake bread. The cast iron stove had been around for a while, but the development of the Rumford stove allowed cooks to regulate the heat under a pot. Many of those fireplaces had ovens on the side for the purpose of baking bread, although if a fireplace was not constructed that way, meat dishes and bread were put on iron pedestals that frequently had a clockwork mechanism to turn the food so that it cooked evenly. And these are only a few, small examples of how the weather affected the way people lived.

This insistence on ignoring the reality that is available in historically accurate art and literature, and right under the noses of these “clackers” says that they are more interested in pursuing a personal agenda and some cash, than they are in accuracy. How difficult is THAT to figure out?

It’s even more disgusting that they get financial support for publishing such baloney.

Last edited 1 year ago by Sara
Reply to  Sara
February 15, 2022 6:48 am

Oh, yeah – almost left this out: lest you think I was ignoring the Medieval Warm Period, which is when the Vikings/Norse went to Iceland and Greenland to set up housekeeping, I was not. The temperatures in England were warm enough for grapevines to flourish, never mind other agricultural products like wheat and flax (source of linen for fabrics), among other things. Artwork from that timeframe shows that people were generally less heavily clothed than they were during the Little Ice Age. This does not say that seasonal changes did not happen, not at all. But when preserved artwork clearly shows people in hosen and tunics, not heavily dressed at all, carrying a stag or a boar on a pole at the end of a hunt, it is indicative of a warmer overall environment.

It lasted about 300 years, and during that time, the Norse left (Norseland – OK, BAD joke!) for Iceland in search of expanding their territory and setting up housekeeping. Unfortunately, the WEATHER changed and while they could fish, the farming they had been doing failed almost completely. Some of them headed west, ending up on the shores of Hudson’s Bay, then went south into Minnesota. And for what it’s worth, Icelanders still speak Old Norse.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Sara
February 15, 2022 11:58 am

Your historical perspective is much appreciated. It really brings out the old adage of what a PhD is — someone who knows almost everything about nothing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sara
February 16, 2022 4:12 am

Thanks for that perspective, sara.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 16, 2022 1:35 pm

Both you, Tom, and Tim Gorman are very welcome.

February 15, 2022 6:04 am

The Piltdown Mann rides a steal horse.

Reply to  kim
February 15, 2022 3:06 pm

But it’s the warmists who are Gish-galloping 🏇

Reply to  Phil Salmon
February 16, 2022 7:45 pm

He rides through the desert on a horse with all names.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
February 15, 2022 6:38 am


It is written near the beginning

“…by erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does exist in reality.”

I think it is meant to be “doesn’t exist”.

Bruce Cobb
February 15, 2022 7:00 am

The ipcc never had any credibility to begin with. Their entire raison d’etre is political, not scientific, though they pretend that to be the case.

David Sulik
February 15, 2022 7:15 am

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the log in your eye, ““climate crisis” that does exist in reality.” NOT going to share or read further.

Reply to  David Sulik
February 16, 2022 8:00 pm

A slip; sling along with the jist even if your brain jibs.

Rud Istvan
February 15, 2022 7:16 am

AR6 repeating the same SPM disinformation using the same shenanigans as before.
One would think the IPCC would realize we are wise to them, but no.
And for the bigger picture:
CMIP6 models are worse, not better, than CMIP5.
Sea level rise is not accelerating.
Arctic summer ice has not disappeared.
Weather extremes have not increased.
Renewables are proving to be ruinables.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 16, 2022 7:46 pm

Gold Star for ‘ruinables’.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 15, 2022 7:46 am

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”—anonymous

As the above article clearly demonstrates, this applies to the IPPC’s war to convict humanity for being the predominate cause of global warming.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 15, 2022 12:52 pm

All warfare is deception! Sun Tzu

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 15, 2022 3:36 pm

Errr . . . make that the IPCC.

I despise typos, even the one’s that I make.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gordon A. Dressler
February 15, 2022 7:57 am

IPCC has always been designed to be a cover for what the socialists have been wanting to do for a generation. Those who weren’t already aware of the many problems with all of the IPCC reports, never cared enough to look.

Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2022 10:12 am

OK here is your chance. What problems?

Reply to  Simon
February 15, 2022 10:56 am

You’ve ignored me when I answered such questions in the past. Why should I believe that you aren’t equally dishonest this time?

Reply to  MarkW
February 15, 2022 7:42 pm

That’s Mark talk for a haven’t actually got anything.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Simon
February 15, 2022 12:07 pm

How about a big one?

Their projections turn into nothing but y = mx + b linear projections after a few years. No natural variation. No ENSOs. No PDOs. No La Ninas. No pauses. No changes due to orbital variation. No recognition of possible Maunder Minimums. Nothing for natural occurrences like volcanoes. (we are supposed to believe that no major volcanic eruptions will occur over the next 100 years?)

Just a ruler straight line of slope “m”. Pick your “m” and draw out your projection!

That’s a BIG problem.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 15, 2022 7:41 pm

Well let’s have a reference then so we can check what you say?

February 15, 2022 8:20 am

I wonder what Steve Mosher thinks about the IPCC going back and doubling down on Mann’s original corrupt hockey stick from the single Yamal tree?

Reply to  Phil Salmon
February 16, 2022 8:07 pm

Take the money & run and run and run.

February 15, 2022 9:09 am

Hard to consider ‘climate science’ really a science per se!?

February 15, 2022 9:16 am

You don’t need to convince me of anything, but I’m not going to believe that IPCC credibility has been destroyed until I read it in the New York Times.

Tim Spence
February 15, 2022 10:03 am

A UN organization founded to promote a climate crisis will never quit, no matter how many letters you send them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tim Spence
February 15, 2022 10:06 am

Mr Hamlin said: “IPCC AR6 SPM Credibility Destroyed by “Disappearing” Medieval Warming Period.”
The graph in IPCC AR6 SPM is a global temperature reconstruction. One of the global temperature reconstruction posted in the article is from Loehle 2008 which ends in 1935 at +0.2. According to BEST the 5yr centered anomaly in 1935 was -0.16 C and in 2019 was +0.97 C for a change of +1.1 C. When you add that to the Loehle graph you get a value of +1.2 C which is not only well above the peak in 900 AD, but cannot even be contained by the y-axis boundary. It is also interesting to note that Loehle is claiming an uncertainty of about 0.3 C back to 0 AD. As a point of comparison Christy et al. 2003 claims the uncertainty on the UAH TLT anomalies of 0.2 C. Anyway, even assuming the 900 AD peak at +0.8 and the 1935 value as at -0.2 you still end up with 2019 being warmer than the 800-900 AD period.

Mr Hamlin, do you accept Loehle’s results?

Gary Pearse
February 15, 2022 10:27 am

Clintel: here is an irrefutable best summary of IPCC activists being wrong about “unprecedented” warming in 100,000 yrs.

comment image

This white spruce, still rooted at Tuktuyaktuk on Canada’s NW coast, was dated at 5,000 ybp is 100km N of the present treeline and several hundred km N of where white spruce this large are living today.

The tree grew in temperatures avg. 4 to 6°C warmer. With arctic enhancement causing doubling of the global anomaly, this means that the globe was 2 to 3°C warmer than today (which also deals a blow to crisis climate). Arctic ice was only seasonal and a beach on todays ice-locked N coast of Greenland has well-washed sand and ancient driftwood.

This is what you have to put out there for broader understanding. I field tested this picture with a 12 yet old and he arrived at the correct interpretation without assistance.

Re the MWP, Google Mount Garibaldi, British Columbia medieval forest under ice of its glacier. School kids can understand it

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 15, 2022 10:48 am

This is a long-neglected area of research that needs to be addressed a lot more.

Where was the Permafrost line during the Glaciation period, how much to the South did it go?

How far south did the Tundra go?

How far south did the Tree line move?

How much rebound has it been since Glaciation ended?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Sunsettommy
February 15, 2022 11:25 am

Sunset, here’s the link re the medieval forest under ice at Mt. Garibaldi, BC. It gives dated details of the onset of the LIA and even that the glacier grew 80m is such and such a time in years. There is no way for climateers to argue this in any other way other than the right way and no way to adjust data!

Sceptics did very well with the climate physics and they won every debate with crisis climate scientists. Now there is no debate and science offerings like Clintel’s can simply be ignored.

The only way to advance the truth now is with unequivocal evidence like what I’ve shown. Pictures and history that the layman can interpret correctly is what needs hammering. Thankfully, the ancient white spruce is far from the beaten track (I still think it should be documented and protected anyway).

The Thames did freeze over and there are paintings re the “Frost Fayers” on the ice and bank ice up to a meter thick. Bruegel’s contemporary winter paintings in the Netherlands are another.

comment image

Farmstead appearing from under the Ice in Greenland …

I believe a Children’s book of these things would bring down the whole house of cards. I’m 84 and still working so I encourage someone else to take up this task.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 15, 2022 12:52 pm

You forgot the link? since I don’t see one.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 16, 2022 4:25 am

Yeah, but what about “Loehle 2008”?

Just kidding! 🙂

Yes, tree stump evidence is indisputable evidence that it was warmer in the past than it is today.

February 15, 2022 11:36 am

I’ve been waiting for something like this. My understanding of the summary report for policy makers is that it is primarily a political document masquerading as a scientific document. That it is not representative of the actual IPCC report. My feeling is that the authors of the summary report need to be fully exposed and taken to the wood shed for well deserved punishment.

February 15, 2022 2:29 pm

Groups of educated and elite policy makers once gathered together to toss virgins into volcanoes to appease angry gods who disrupted harvests by manifesting bad weather. The summary of the results of those policy makers is unclear today and largely ignored.

Groups of educated and elite policy makers once gathered together to discuss the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. The summary of the results of those policy makers is unclear today and largely ignored.

Groups of educated and elite policy makers once gathered together to discuss the subject of “weather cooking” performed by known witches which ruined crop yields. The summary of the results of those policy makers is unclear today and largely ignored.

Groups of educated and elite policy makers are gathered together today to discuss world plans of weather modification by geoengineering to “save the world from climate armageddon”. The summary of the results of those policy makers is unclear today but what is clear is that they are all psychic, because it has never happened before.

Linda Goodman
February 15, 2022 2:36 pm

Why wouldn’t they deceive when it’s all they’ve ever done? AGW is the monster of big lies.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the truth. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels

“[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.” – Adolph Hitler

Linda Goodman
Reply to  Linda Goodman
February 15, 2022 2:50 pm

60 years later the infiltration is complete, from local school boards to the military industrial complex. But it’s a house of cards built by tyrants and threatened by the winds of truth; censorship is their ONLY shield from collapse.

“For we are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections; on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published; it’s mistakes are buried, not headlined; its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”
April 27, 1961 speech: The President & The Press
relevant excerpt above at 9:59

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Linda Goodman
February 16, 2022 4:47 am

Manipulating humans using human psychology. That’s what Hitler and Goebbels were doing deliberately, and that’s what the leaders of our age are also doing.

I would say that the Propaganda Wing of the radical Leftists in the Western Democracies have far surpassed the propaganda abilities of the Nazis. They operate the same way, by repeating leftwing lies over and over and over again, but they have so much more reach than the Nazis ever had.

It’s amazing anyone can think straight after listening to all the lies put out by the Leftwing Media.

Happily, there are some who *can* think straight, and know BS for what it is when they hear and see it.

Tom Abbott
February 16, 2022 2:36 am

From the article: “The seriously flawed SPM is “inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation” would be much more appropriate.”

Adaption to what? A fake CO2/climate crisis? Why would we need to adapt to that?

Tom Abbott
February 16, 2022 2:51 am

From the article:

1. There’s no evidence humans are causing the warming of the atmosphere.

2. Clintel criticizes the IPCC for not including the Roman and Medieval warm periods in their temperature graph. But there’s no mention of the written, historic temperature record from Clintel, which is much more definitive than the Roman or Medieval warm periods.

The written, historic temperature record does not show that CO2 is a major player in warming the atmosphere. Instead, the written, historic temperature record shows it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, so why doesn’t Clintel point these facts out? This is the equivalent of acceptance of the bastardization of the instrument-era temperature record by Clintel. Why would Clintel accept this blatant lie?

I would have copied and pasted Clintel’s remarks but the way the page is formatted prevents copy and paste. I think this way of formatting should not be done at WUWT. Text. Give us text. So we can copy and paste and expose the misinformation.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
February 16, 2022 3:09 am

From the article: “The UN IPCC AR6 SPM “disappearing” the Medieval Warming Period is such an egregiously flawed climate alarmist propaganda scheme that it deserves a much higher level of scientific scrutiny and public attention.”

So why doesn’t the disappearing of the Early Twentieth Century warming by dishonest alarmists get Clintel equally exercised?

The Early Twnetieth Century warming proves the same thing the Medieval warming proves: That it was just as warm in the past as it is today, and CO2 had not added to that warmth, since we are no warmer today than then, and are actually cooler today than then.

Why is Clintel afraid to take on Phil Jones?

Tom Abbott
February 16, 2022 4:53 am

A good book to read about the corruption of the UN IPCC is:

The Delinquent Teenager by Donna Laframboise

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights