A Critique of AR6

By Andy May

After more than two years of hard work, Marcel Crok, I, and 11 other scientists have finally published our critique of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth report (AR6). The entire book has been extensively peer reviewed and a low-resolution pdf of a nearly final draft of the book has been available for weeks at clintel.org. All comments received on this draft have been carefully considered and incorporated, if approved by the team, in the final book. We are a bit hard on AR6, but our criticisms are well deserved. Only the eBook is out now, the print edition should be along in a week or two. The Kindle edition is text-to-speech enabled. Available at Amazon, Kobo, and Barnes and Noble.

A Brief Summary of the Contents

The IPCC has completed its sixth climate change assessment cycle consisting of seven reports in total, collectively known as “AR6.” A team of eight scientists, in addition to several anonymous expert reviewers, from the Clintel network, have analyzed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. The team and reviewers are from Spain, Canada, Italy, Germany, Norway, The Netherlands, the U.K., and the U.S. In every chapter, this book documents biases and errors in the IPCC assessment. The errors are worse in the WG2 report but are also present in the WG1 report. 

For example, the IPCC ignored 52 highly relevant peer-review articles showing that “normalised disaster losses” saw no increase attributable to climate change yet highlighted one, out of 53 papers, that claimed there is an increase in losses. That one paper is – not surprisingly – flawed, but apparently its conclusions were so appealing to the IPCC that they fell for it. The strategy of the IPCC seems to be to hide any good news about climate change. 

We are on a highway to climate hell”, said UN-boss Guterres recently. But an in-depth look at mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low. Well-known economist Bjorn Lomborg published this excellent news in a 2020 peer-reviewed paper, but the IPCC chose to ignore it, see figure 17 here

Back in 2010, errors in the fourth WG2 report led to the investigation of the IPCC by the InterAcademy Council. This IAC Review recommended, among other recommendations, that “[h]aving author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” This important recommendation is still ignored by the IPCC. One of the key recommendations in IAC Review that the AR6 authors ignored, as documented in our book, is:

“The IPCC should encourage Review Editors to fully exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.”

InterAcademy Council Review of the IPCC, page xiv

Numerous very well documented reviewer’s comments were completely ignored in AR6, our book documents many of the more egregious of these. The AR6 Working Group 1 report is not free from bias and misleading conclusions either. The IPCC tries to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, a warm period between 10,000 and 6000 years ago, by embracing a new hockey stick graph, that is the result of cherry-picked temperature proxies. They ignore temperature reconstructions that show significantly more variability in the past.

The IPCC claims there is an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise in recent decades. We show this claim is flawed because the IPCC ignores decadal natural variability in the sea level rate. We also show that the IPCC sea level tool – made available for the first time – shows a mysterious and unlikely jump upward in 2020.

Canadian economist Ross McKitrick, pointed out that all models used by the IPCC, show too much warming in the troposphere, both globally and in the tropics (where models predict a ‘hot spot’). Observed warming indicates a moderate climate sensitivity between 1 and 2.5 degrees Celsius, while the IPCC claims a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees.

On top of that, the IPCC is ‘addicted’ to its highest greenhouse gas emission scenario, the so-called RCP8.5 or now SSP5-8.5 scenario. In recent years, several papers have demonstrated that this scenario is simply not plausible and should not be used for policy purposes. Deep inside the WG1 report the IPCC acknowledges that this scenario has a ‘low likelihood’, but this very important remark was not highlighted in the Summary for Policy Makers, so the media and policy makers are unaware of this. This implausible scenario is commonly used in the report.

Our conclusions are quite harsh. We document biases and errors in almost every chapter we reviewed. In some cases, of course, one can quibble endlessly about our criticism and how relevant it is for the overall ‘climate narrative’ of the IPCC. In some cases, though, we document such blatant cherry picking by the IPCC, that even ardent supporters of the IPCC should feel embarrassed.

The AR6 report reveals that they have ignored the very important multi-decadal ocean oscillations discovered in the 1990s and 2000s (see Vinos, 2022 Ch. 11 and Wyatt and Curry, 2014) long after the IPCC had focused exclusively on anthropogenic causes. These ocean oscillations, collectively, have a large effect on our climate, but are unrelated to “non-condensing greenhouse gases.” AR6 states that:

“there has been negligible long-term influence from solar activity and volcanoes”

AR6, page 67

Yet, they acknowledge no other natural influence on multidecadal climate change despite the recent discoveries suggesting significant natural climate change, a true case of tunnel vision.

We were promised IPCC reports that would objectively report on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, yet we find numerous examples where important research was ignored. In Ross McKitrick’s chapter on the “hot spot,” he lists many important papers that are not even mentioned in AR6. Marcel Crok gives examples where unreasonable emissions scenarios are used to frighten the public in his chapter on scenarios, and examples of bias and hiding good news in his chapters on extreme weather and snowfall. Nicola Scafetta and Fritz Vahrenholt document that over 100 papers showing solar activity correlates with climate change have been ignored by the IPCC. Numerous other examples are documented in other chapters. These deliberate omissions and distortions of the truth do not speak well for the IPCC, reform of the institution is desperately needed.

Perhaps this is why, after 47 reports and 32 years, they have yet to convince a majority of the people on Earth, or in the United States, that manmade climate change is our most important and serious societal problem. Other problems are always considered more important and urgent. In a 2018 Pew Research poll climate change ranked 18th, of 19 issues in importance, in a similar 2014 poll, climate change ranked 14th in a list of priorities. A 2022 poll by the Pew Research Center also found climate change ranked 14th. In the UN My World 2015 Report, a poll of 10 million people around the world, climate change ranked dead last of 16 issues in importance. Minds are not being changed.

Are we at a fork in the road? Will the United Nations, the IPCC, and politicians finally realize that their 50-year-old hypothesis is out of date and incorporate the new natural warming forces discovered in the past thirty years into their work and projections? In the past the IPCC has fought off attempts to independently review their work. We hope our documentation of the problems in AR6 eventually leads to the necessary changes in their organization and procedures.

5 32 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rud Istvan
May 28, 2023 2:32 pm

Andy, thanks for being part of this important effort and highlighting it here. I am buying the Kindle ebook to pleasurably read on iPad as soon as I log off here.

In my 2014 ebook Blowing Smoke (Judith Curry foreword), various essays documented many IPCC AR4 biases or errors in both WG1 and WG2. Not just selective stuff, in some cases provably flat wrong. (Your post notes the Himalayan glacier fiasco that IPCC was forced to retract. That is the sole subject of one eponymous essay.) Not surprised that AR6 is no different. AGW is akin to a religion, and no amount of factual truth rebuttal seems to make a difference to its alarmists.

Your groups new book length AR6 critique deepens the IPCC ‘holes‘ problem. An old US Army adage: if you are in a hole and want out, first stop digging. IPCC continues to dig a deeper hole.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 28, 2023 10:01 pm

I unreservedly recommend Rud’s ebook “Blowing Smoke” to everybody.

Curious George
May 28, 2023 2:51 pm

we find numerous examples where important research was ignored.”
And who decides what research is important? Surely the IPCC, not you 🙂

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Curious George
May 28, 2023 3:08 pm

Yup. From Andy’s post. 53 papers on a topic. 52 con, one pro albeit methodologically flawed. So IPCC picks the flawed pro and does not mention the 52 con. Thus is IPCC ‘science review’ done. The IPCC ‘objective’ authors obviously know from whence the butter for their bread comes.

Reply to  Curious George
May 28, 2023 4:03 pm

The IPCC is not actually a scientific organization .
The IPCC is a powerful group that is using the threat of runaway warming to gain political control .
It ignores any research that does not agree with their agenda.
Show me one climate debate that the warmists have won.
The warmists now refuse to debate saying that the science is settled .

Reply to  Graham
May 28, 2023 5:57 pm

Show me one climate debate that the warmists have won.”

Pretty hard when debate is disallowed. Again, I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the climate ”scientists”

Curious George
Reply to  Graham
May 28, 2023 6:10 pm

The IPCC is not a scientific organization. Remember the golden rule of arts and sciences: Who has gold, sets the rules.

Reply to  Curious George
May 28, 2023 8:08 pm

So the IPCC – which is not a scientific organization – sets the rules?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Colin
May 29, 2023 2:21 am

Yeah. Very few rules are set by organizations that are scientific in nature. Many rules are not even set by organizations of any type, but by an individual.

Did you have a point?

Reply to  Curious George
May 29, 2023 2:32 am


Reply to  HotScot
May 29, 2023 3:07 pm

Galileo couldn’t prove he was right (due to the limits of instruments at the time), so he was told to teach Copernican ideas as a theory – and being the typical blustery hot-headed Italian we all know and love 😁 he had to flaunt that rule and then go pick on his friend publicly in a published and make him look like a fool for disagreeing with him – and unfortunately for him his friend was the Pope. The political/personality affair was unfortunate but people don’t realize that Galileo wasn’t being scientifically rigorous, which is ironic since he is the father of the scientific method.

His personal attack on his friend is the same kind of ridiculing imployed by the warmunists and the useful idiot media.

Reply to  Graham
May 29, 2023 8:28 pm

Show me one climate debate that the warmists have won.

Show me one climate prediction from the warmists that has come true. 🙂

Reply to  Curious George
May 28, 2023 5:55 pm

They have shown time and again that they should be the last to decide what research is important. If it’s not abundantly clear to you by now that they are not interested in reflecting reality but more in pushing a political agenda, it never will be.
Thank you Andy for all your work.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Curious George
May 29, 2023 3:58 am

And who decides what research is important? Surely the IPCC, not you

No. The correct answer is that no individual, whether it’s an institution or a person, gets to decide unilaterally.

You appear to genuinely believe that the only possible attitudes us ignorant peasants should adopt before the “hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional” beings (hat-tip to the late great Douglas Adams) that are “the IPCC scientists” are either :
1) Prostrate before them, kissing their … feet, or
2) Gazing worshipfully upon them from afar.

No, there are other possibilities when considering the lofty proclamations of the IPCC … which stands for the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, remember.

How about considering what someone who was awarded the Nobel Prize in one of the “hard” sciences (physics) instead of a group of international political appointees instead.

Richard Feynman on the characteristics of “cargo cult scientists”, as opposed to “Real Scientists” (TM) :

There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science, it’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards.

For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it; other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked — to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

Re-read the ATL article about the behaviour of the IPCC apparatchiks, as well as Jennifer Marohasy’s articles about the behaviour of the Australian BoM.

Sound familiar ?

Richard Feynman on the more general issue of the historical development of The Scientific Method (TSM) :

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Curious George
May 29, 2023 4:37 am

“Surely the IPCC, not you”

And you, of course, having the faith, trust them?

Reply to  Curious George
May 29, 2023 8:16 am

I think everyone seems to have missed your smiley face at the end. You were speaking ironically or sarcastically, weren’t you? We really do need a /joke/ or /sarcasm/ font to clear up these misunderstandings.

Mark BLR
Reply to  OweninGA
May 30, 2023 4:33 am

Disclaimer : While my posts tend to be (overly ?) cynical, I have a blind spot when it comes to detecting sarcasm in other people’s posts.

About a decade ago I saw this character flaw (which I freely admit it is) in someone else called “channelling your inner Sheldon”.

It’s a good a description as any.

– – – – –

You were speaking ironically or sarcastically, weren’t you?

On re-reading Curious George’s OP I suppose it is possible that I (and others ?) may indeed have succumbed to a version of Poe’s Law, but in my personal experience the vast majority of “sarcastic” comments along the lines of

Who should I trust, the 1000s of (actively publishing climate) scientists who work for the IPCC or you, second-person singular, a random (and/or anonymous) Internet poster ?

turned out to be targeting the “you” in there, not “the IPCC”.

– – – – –

We really do need a /joke/ or /sarcasm/ font to clear up these misunderstandings.

Agreed !

I have sometimes ended a post with something like “Now where did Antony hide the ‘add sarcasm [ / cynicism / irony ] HTML tags’ button again ?” myself.

I’m not sure it would have been enough in this particular case though.

May 28, 2023 3:15 pm

We hope our documentation

How much hope would you have that an outside review of any Papal Decree would lead to changes in the Church?

Reply to  AndyHce
May 28, 2023 3:36 pm

Not so much a papal decree as theses nailed to the church doors.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Giving_Cat
May 28, 2023 4:49 pm

95 theses, to be precise. (I was raised an Eastern European Lutheran.)

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 28, 2023 5:28 pm

Thanks Rud. I was beginning to think I was 500 years behind the times.

Maybe we are on the cusp of CliSci Reform?

Reply to  Rud Istvan
May 29, 2023 3:09 pm

Luther was wrong. Just reading the Gospel of Matthew should make a protestant’s head explode.

Reply to  AndyHce
May 29, 2023 2:34 am

In my haste, I read that as Paypal. Huh?! 🤣

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  AndyHce
May 29, 2023 4:42 am

Apparently the IPCC is also infallible! 🙂

May 28, 2023 3:36 pm

Thankyou Andy May .
I would like to comment on you very last sentence .
“We hope our documentation of the problems in AR6 ” will” eventually lead to the necessary changes in their organization and procedures.”
The IPCC has been dominated by socialists that are using their power and the threat of runaway climate change to change the world .
The IPCC is a biased organization that has been taken over by globalists with one goal.
Their agenda has always been one world government with the UN in charge.
The IPCC is no longer a scientific organization ,it is now a full blown political entity with far to much power and influence .
I knew John Maunder .a climate scientist from New Zealand who attended an early climate conference in Austria and world climate summit in Rio de Janeiro back in 1992.
He was very skeptical of the claims that were being made then .He told me that the world has been warmer than at present 4 times in the last 11000 years and that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic .More CO2 will not have any measurable effect on the worlds temperature .
Nothing has changed except the IPCC has been taken over by power brokers at the UN who are using the threat of runaway warming to dominate the world.
Finally in my opinion the UN has just about out lived its usefulness .

Reply to  Graham
May 28, 2023 3:56 pm

The UN outlived any usefulness in 1971 when Communist China replaced Tiawan on the Security Council.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Giving_Cat
May 28, 2023 4:38 pm

If the much smaller League of Nations from 1920 till 1945 that had 58 member nations failed to prevent another world war why would its much expanded successor, the United Nations with 193 members, succeed?

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 28, 2023 11:54 pm

Was the League of Nations an organization intended to be an unquestionable world government?

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
May 29, 2023 2:35 am

A point I continue to make.

Reply to  Graham
May 28, 2023 4:58 pm

The UN was never fit for purpose, even on day one.

May 28, 2023 4:24 pm

Not all of then scientists a grease

May 28, 2023 4:29 pm

Bless you for doing this critically important work!

It will be dismissed without consideration by mainstream media and their brainwashed acolytes. How do we break through their smokescreen?

Reply to  Andy May
May 28, 2023 6:16 pm

I’ve been doing my part for over 20 years being the voice of reason countering alarmist headlines. Hard to be effective when empirical data and peer reviewed evidence that destroys the narrative gets you censored and suspended from commenting..

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  gyan1
May 29, 2023 4:47 am


Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 29, 2023 8:26 am

I worry that I may one day be excommunicated for my conversations with students! I am not tenured. (It helps to be retirement eligible and already own my house and cars. Also academia is a second career and I already have my nest egg squirrelled away.)

Reply to  gyan1
May 29, 2023 8:23 am

Me too. I have had many long conversations with students about some of the inanities that emanate from CAGW/CACC dogma. After their section on buffering capacity in Chemistry I, I have initiated many conversations about the composition of ocean waters and the seafloor that have led the students to conclude that ocean acidification is a red herring. I am careful to only do order of magnitude math, and never actually tell them it is hogwash, but it is great to see their aha moments when they make the connections themselves.

Reply to  OweninGA
May 29, 2023 1:41 pm

Thanks for reaching the young people! Our best hope.

For people still paranoid of ocean “acidification” I like to point out that the geologic average PH which all species evolved through is 7.8. Significantly less alkaline than the current 8.1.

Reply to  gyan1
May 28, 2023 6:01 pm

How do we break through their smokescreen?”
As with all false beliefs it will deteriorate with the passage of time. But it might take a while…

Reply to  Mike
May 28, 2023 11:55 pm

I think the goal is 1000 years.

Rich Davis
Reply to  AndyHce
May 29, 2023 2:34 am

Those National Socialists thought small with their thousand year Reich. The Science ™ will give us a permanent Wokedom on Earth.

Dave Fair
Reply to  gyan1
May 28, 2023 10:07 pm

Storm every meeting and press conference held by alarmist organizations, including government agencies.

Reply to  gyan1
May 29, 2023 12:05 am

It won’t be dismissed.

The MSM will not even consider it…

Rich Davis
Reply to  Hysteria
May 29, 2023 2:39 am

Certainly true with the lamestream media, but maybe, just maybe, somebody will use it to deflate the pretention that “no serious scientists disagree”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  gyan1
May 29, 2023 4:46 am

No doubt it will be ignored and not mentioned anywhere but here.

Ulric Lyons
May 28, 2023 4:35 pm

Once upon a time there was a climate system where the weather and ocean cycles varied all by themselves. Human activities heated the climate system and made the weather and oceans vary more furiously. The end.
It’s a horror story, and you’ll completely spoil the plot with any mention of how the Sun drives the weather variability and the ocean cycles.

Richard Page
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
May 28, 2023 5:04 pm

‘Human activities heated the towns and cities where the temperature stations were kept which affected the weather and oceans hardly at all. The end.’
There – fixed it for you!

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Richard Page
May 29, 2023 7:23 am

As we all know, the central worry in the horror story is the Arctic warming, but the warm phase of the AMO associated with the warmer Arctic is quite normal during each centennial solar minimum.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
May 29, 2023 4:51 am

Like, you mean that million mile in diameter ferociously hot thing up in the sky is more significant to our climate than a few more CO2 molecules? Shame on you for not having faith in our Most Holy IPCC!

May 28, 2023 4:58 pm

The IPCC spwes out mountains of crap so the response is to spew out a small mountain of crap to dispute the findings.

The single gem of knowledge that condemns the whole notion of “greenhouse gas” warming is that open ocean surface temperature CANNOT sustain more than 30C. It is the upper limit of convective instability and that limit is only altered by altering the atmospheric mass.

A week in the western Pacific off Phillipines:

Now under 30C:

The fact that no ocean temperature can sustain a temperature above 30C means that runaway global warming can only occur in climate models where the cloud is parameterised nonsense unrelated to surface temperature.

Reply to  RickWill
May 28, 2023 6:12 pm

The single gem of knowledge that condemns the whole notion of “greenhouse gas” warming is that open ocean surface temperature CANNOT sustain more than 30C. It is the upper limit of convective instability and that limit is only altered by altering the atmospheric mass.

Unfortunately, that fact is not the fatal shot to a hypothesis that a claims a new equilibrium from co2 forcing will see the 30 degrees upper limit reached more frequently. (regardless if that is true or not)

Reply to  Mike
May 28, 2023 9:13 pm

Unfortunately, that fact is not the fatal shot to a hypothesis

It is the fatal flaw in runaway global warming. No ocean surface can sustain a temperature above 30C.

This simple gem of knowledge falsifies all existing climate models because they all show warming in the western Pacific, which is already on the limit most of the time. Even the INM model has to cool the present to 26C tp get a warming trend to remain below 30C by the end of the century.

Reply to  RickWill
May 29, 2023 8:58 am

“No ocean surface can sustain a temperature above 30C.
This simple gem of knowledge falsifies  . . . “

Well, there is this:
“Several countries border the seaside of the Red Sea, including: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Yemen. We measure the water temperature daily in these countries and archive it in order to calculate monthly averages . . . The seasonal average for the water temperature in the month of may is between 73°F and 88°F. The lowest sea temperature measured this month is 70°F and the highest is 90°F.” —https://www.seatemperatu.re/seas-and-oceans/red-sea/may/

Ummm . . . 88°F is 31C, hotter than 30C.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 29, 2023 1:25 pm

is that open ocean surface temperature CANNOT sustain more than 30C.

That is what he said in his original post on this string.

You are referencing a “sea”, not an “open ocean”.

Pretty silly IMO.

Reply to  Drake
May 29, 2023 3:18 pm

“The Seven Seas include the Arctic, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific, Indian, and Southern oceans.”https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sevenseas.html#:~:text=The%20Seven%20Seas%20include%20the,%2C%20Indian%2C%20and%20Southern%20oceans

Speaking of silly, that is.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 30, 2023 5:13 am

So you’d describe the Red Sea as open ocean?

And how do you define the word ‘sustain’?

May 28, 2023 5:00 pm

The UN World Health Organisation WHO is perilously close to taking over the national health systems of essentially all countries.
It is not hard to see similar control-freak outcomes from WHO and IPCC.
Wake your own governments up. There are many concerned web sites to search.
Vitally important, IMO. Geoff S

May 28, 2023 5:05 pm

Top marks.
Forgive me if you have already picked this up.
IPCC state that heatwaves are becoming more frequent, longer and hotter.
This is based on fewer than 5 papers. All are pro, not con.
All of the exclude temperature data prior to year 1950.
There were many earlier heatwaves, l

Reply to  sherro01
May 28, 2023 5:12 pm

(wifi stopped. Continuing. … )
Heatwaves like 1930s USA dustbowl, 1890s Australia, for just 2 examples that challenge IPCC story telling. These are well known but ignored by IPCC.
Heatwaves are a major item used by IPCC in its fables about extreme events and the outright fabrications of extreme event attribution.
Some IPCC authors should be behind bars. Geoff S

Reply to  sherro01
May 29, 2023 1:43 pm

The next US congress must, after moving their committee meetings OUT OF D.C., call the US IPCC “scientific” contingent to testify under oath. Subpoena if necessary, EVERY “scientist” who did any “climate science” work funded by the US government.

When they lie, and they will, then prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.

Also demand that they provide ALL data and research publically published. Any “Institution of Higher Learning” failing to provide such data to be banned from ANY research funding and federal “student loan or grant” funds.

The NEW locations for all congressional committee meetings to be in counties with at least 85% Republican voters.

Durham only tried 2 cases in his investigation. Both clear cut cases BUT being tried in front of a 95% Democrat jury, both crooks walked.

Harry Reid changed the rules for judicial and administrative approximants to 50% + 1 in the US Senate to stack the DC Circuit Court with Obama far left appointees. That brilliant political move is, to this day, skewing federal trials in DC far to the left.

TRUMP! was able to use the new rule, expanded to the SCOTUS by McConnell, but he was unable to appoint true extremist Justices willing to do what is necessary to save the country.

Every Dem appointee is a true extremist with no regards to the constitution, hell they can’t even define the term “woman”.

May 28, 2023 5:16 pm

So I guess when you are paid to come up with a forgone conclusion, that I what you come up with. Real science.

Reply to  barryjo
May 28, 2023 6:15 pm

IPCC is science made to order.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Mike
May 29, 2023 2:46 am

Bespoke Truth – The Science ™

May 28, 2023 6:08 pm

Thanks for your dedication and hard work investigating the IPCC’s lengthy documents. Hopefully, one of these years a more scientific-oriented organization will produce a balanced interpretation on climate change.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Andy May
May 29, 2023 5:03 am

as to Renee’s question- there is such an organization but I can’t think of the name- it’s something like “The Non Government….. Climate Change….”. Dam, I’m getting demented in my old age. It has annual meetings- and even a YouTube channel- but I just can’t think of it

and of course there’s also the Heartland Institute: https://www.youtube.com/@HeartlandInstitute/videos

May 28, 2023 6:19 pm

Andy, the letter “I” in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental, not International.


It doesnot add up
May 28, 2023 7:35 pm

The question is how do we get these findings heard among the population at large and among the politicians and civil servants and quangocrats that refuse to acknowledge the truth?

Chris Hanley
May 28, 2023 9:16 pm

The IPCC tries to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the Holocene Climatic Optimum … that is the result of cherry-picked temperature proxies.

There could not be more tangible or accurately dated evidence of temperatures during the Holocene Optimum than radiocarbon dated tree line remnants from northern Canada and northern Eurasia that routinely indicate summer temperatures 3C-4C above now.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Andy May
May 29, 2023 5:06 am

Yet, isn’t it the case that the alarmists always avoid discussing this? Or am I wrong? Do they discuss it but maybe have their excuses as to why it’s not important?

May 29, 2023 1:14 am

These deliberate omissions and distortions of the truth do not speak well for the IPCC, reform of the institution is desperately needed.

The IPCC in its current state needs to be abolished.

Rich Davis
Reply to  SteveG
May 29, 2023 2:50 am

As an entity under the auspices of the UN, the most satisfying resolution would be abolishing the UN.

May 29, 2023 1:26 am

Purchased. Thanks.

Mark BLR
May 29, 2023 4:12 am

The IPCC has completed its sixth climate change assessment cycle consisting of seven reports in total, collectively known as “AR6.”

Minor nitpick …

If you click-through from your “AR6” link you arrive on their “AR6 Synthesis Report : Climate Change 2023” page.

Direct URL : https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

That page currently shows the status of the “SYR (Full volume)” is still “Coming soon” (screenshot below for the lazy).

Note also that the “Annex I” and “Annex II” links are to “Subject to copyedit” versions of the “Glossary” and “Acronyms” additions to the SYR, not the “completed” (/ final) versions.

May 29, 2023 4:56 am

In the spirit of “where is Wally”, where is Nick?

Rich Davis
Reply to  186no
May 29, 2023 8:03 am

Must have pressing nitpicking business elsewhere.

Danley B. Wolfe
May 29, 2023 8:52 am

Deception can be accidental or intentional … the AR reports have been consitently deceptive from the beginning, guilty on all counts, and intentional deception is much worse something like lying to make false claims in order to sway not just the scientific community but general public and policy makers.

May 29, 2023 9:42 am

Taken verbatim from the IPCC charter (aka, PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK):

2. 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. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”
(my underlining emphasis added)

Note 1: the IPCC was never chartered to examine natural variability of climate change, only human-induced climate change. Old adage, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Note 2: lawyers and others familiar with contract law will carefully note the distinction between “should” and “shall” (that is, the options available under “should” versus the rigidity of action required under “shall”).

Note 3: Only a body such as the UN, in defining the role of the IPCC, could conflate taking a position of neutrality in reporting with that of “may need to deal objectively with . . . application of particular policies”. That last phrase definitely needs additional clarification, given IPCC’s documented lack of objectivity.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 29, 2023 7:54 pm

I was hoping someone would point out that the IPCC was tasked with finding human-caused climate change. They were paid to find it, and now they claim they have found it, even though they couldn’t prove it.

The IPCC is not an unbiased entity and everything they do is in furtherance of their human-caused climate change agenda. They have a reason to lie to us, and they do.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 30, 2023 5:23 am

They had a show of hands, and at least 97% agreed that they’d found what they were looking for. (Pseudo-)science at its best…

Tom Abbott
May 29, 2023 7:59 pm

From the article: “For example, the IPCC ignored 52 highly relevant peer-review articles showing that “normalised disaster losses” saw no increase attributable to climate change yet highlighted one, out of 53 papers, that claimed there is an increase in losses. That one paper is – not surprisingly – flawed, but apparently its conclusions were so appealing to the IPCC that they fell for it.”

I think you are being too kind, Andy. These people were not fooled into rejecting 52 papers and settling on the one that took the position they wanted.

I would call them deliberate liars. They knew what they were doing.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights