Our new book, The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC: An Analysis of AR6, is creating a lot of attention and excitement around the world. It is the first authoritative critique of the new IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) climate change report, “AR6.” AR6 ignores all climate change research that goes against their narrative and agenda, we show you what they are hiding in this book.
Below are links to some of the interviews that Marcel Crok and I have had so far on the book:
Marcel’s interview on the Laughland Report, in English. “Do the cost/benefit analysis on climate expenditures!”
My interview on the Heartland Institute Climate Change Roundtable TV show, in English. “The IPCC RCP 8.5 CO2 emissions scenario is not just improbable, it is impossible!”
Marcel Crok speaks at the Heartland Institute Climate Reality Forum, before publication of the book, in English. “The IPCC is rewriting history with their new hockey stick graph.”
My podcast interview with H. Sterling Burnett, in English, with no video.
My interview on Tom Nelson’s podcast, in English. “The 13 of us that worked on this book come from seven different countries around the world, eight of us were chapter authors and five were expert reviewers.”
Marcel Crok speaks at the EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy) meeting in Germany, in English. “[AR6] hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths. [AR6] wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5 deg. C, it is more likely below 2 deg. C.”
Jurgen Tiekstra interviews Marcel Crok and Guido van der Werf on De Nieuwe Wereld TV in Dutch. Guido van der Werf is a professor of the carbon cycle and expert in the field of forest fires. Marcel and Guido are opponents in the interview and also friends.
Marcel Crok is interviewed on Ongehoord TV Nieuws, in Dutch.
Marcel Crok is interviewed on blckbx in Dutch.
Kudos to anyone challenging the AGW dogma. I still say those converted from the dark side of AGW will never return and the enlightened number can only grow. Science will win.
I suspect those on the dark side of this issue cannot be converted.
Until they lose their cushy AGW-promoting job or retire.
Even then, they may have to maintain their only friends, who are still on the climate trough.
Exactly. Too much time and/or money invested.
They will do it under cover of…..
”I always said it was not 100% certain” or
”I actually agreed with you on most principles” or
”The data we had at the time was what we based our opinions on” or
”It was a mistake to take Michael Mann at his word – he is the one to blame for not giving us all the data” or
”I had to do it to keep my job. I had three kids to feed. You can’t blame me” or
”I would have been bullied on social media and become clinically depressed”
etc etc etc.
I.E. face saving dancing on a pin head with hiking boots on…
“ I didn’t do anything wrong. I was only following orders“?
In the U.S., the Manns, Desslers and Hayhoes, along with the vast majority of D.C. government workers and contractors, the lamestream press, university professors, public school teachers, etc. vote in favor of crime, anarchy, murder of the unborn, sexual perversion and censorship. These all go hand in hand with their nihilistic world views and climate hysteria. Few will have their eyes opened and repent of their evil, though we must persist and hope that some will awaken from their spiritual comas.
Right – because as stated by the former head of the IPCC, the real goal of the climate movement is the destruction of capitalism – they’re all just a bunch of communists using global warming as their weapon to shut down western civilization and install their Marxist/communist utopia
“I suspect those on the dark side of this issue cannot be converted.” But there have been many (like me). How many have you heard/read about that have gone from being against AGW to pro AGW? And the momentum builds as the false and scare mongoring claims are brought to light.
Or maybe it will eventually be somewhat like the history of the Roman Empire is today. Most issues are not so controversial anymore except to some history professors.
When climate scientists are willing to bet their pension on ECS to within a tenth of a degree, I’ll know that climate science is settled. Until then, it’s not much better than astrology.
Unfortunately, to bet on ECS to within a tenth of a degree is very safe. No one has been able to measure ECS even within one degree.
That’s right.
I am very disappointed that ECS ISN’T going to be above 2.5°C – especially with summer 1/3rd done and winter only 5 months away officially but Southern Ontario usually gets a taste of it in November.
Oh, to be able to go back to the climate utopia of the Cretaceous or Eocene!
I can highly recommend the book “Frozen …” by the Clintel group. [Kindle version]
It skewers AR6 on such topics as weather damages, sea level rise, implausible scenarios such as RCP8.5 & 7.0, tropical hotspot is still in most GCMs, and reviews non-TSI effects of the Sun on climate [among other topics].
And the linked video interview of Marcel Crok was good, even at 1.5 speed. Athough Laughland seemed relatively clueless [he kept aimlessly thumbing through the book] he did let Crok expound on the topics.
I was wondering if there was a Kindle version. Thanks, I’ll be getting a copy.
From the page at Amazon:
” … an in-depth look at mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low. “
This should say “weather-related“, not climate. The issue is destructive atmospheric conditions, such as extreme temperatures, high winds or heavy rain or hail.
If the authors of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) mis-use terms, the rest of us do not have to follow their lead. 😇
According to CLINTEL about 90% of extreme weather damage comes from flooding and hurricanes and even the IPCC admits neither of them are increasing in frequency or severity. That means its a waste of productive time to worry about droughts, wildfires, heatwaves & etc. even though none of those globally are increasing in severity except for some minor types of droughts regionally.
[Note: IIRC, about 60% of all hurricane damage comes from U.S. landfalls.]
Well said. If your stated proportions are correct, we can dismiss “ droughts, wildfires, heatwaves & etc. “ out of hand unless there were a cataclysmic increase in these.
Isn’t this beating a dead horse? Worse, a horse that’s on our side.
AR6 WG1 provides little support for belief in a climate emergency. So it’s been canceled. The press, governments, and NGOs mostly ignore it. Claims by activists are reported uncritically, even when they explicitly contradict WG1.
So what’s the point of us attacking WG1? A bit of a circular firing squad.
I find that citing the IPCC WG1 is an effect tactic against alarmists. It usually stumps them. They’ve no reply. But it’s like spitting on a tank. Unsightly, but the tank rolls on. But if we all do it…
Instead of continuing losing tactics, let’s try something different. Embrace WG1. It’s a potentially powerful ally.
The IPCC isn’t alarmist after all.
First, I specifically referred to the IPCC’s WG1 – the physical science. For good reason. Most large organizations (like the IPCC and the US government) can’t accurately be described that easily. Like Heaven, they have many houses (but few other similarities to Heaven).
Second, these things are a spectrum, not binary. Alarmists’ claims have escalated to apocalyptic. The physical scientists have not stayed with the parade (which surprised me).
But they’ve allowed their work to be corrupted both within WGI and in the larger SPM.
“Allowed”, no. Replace with the phrase “been coerced into letting” and you’re nearer the truth.
Yes. In Heaven political alliances are among the uncorrupted. Down here we need alliances of convenience.
In the case of scientists associated with academia, governmental agencies and the UN IPCC it is more an allegiance to the paycheck or an ideological congruence. But I do agree that we need to make concessions to those scientists that at least come part way and avoid criticizing them to the extent we are able.
The non-science SPMs are most definitely rabid alarmism.
The actual science… isn’t.
But the actual science is twisted within WGI to support the UN IPCC’s socialist agenda.
Yes, I agree that WG2 and WG3 are dumpster fires.
So let’s cite WG1 where useful. Roger Pielke Jr does this well.
Bullshit. They are a bunch of socialists and Marxists that are out to destroy capitalism. You can’t put lipstick on that pig.
The incessantly seized upon heavily political, science lacking and Marxist underwritten summary by those suffering from AGW/CC CO2 Oughtism gives the game away for me, every time.
Viz; Mediterranean heat wave described in apocalyptic fashion – we were on Cephalonia in 1987 about 2/3 weeks after very high temperatures throughout the Med caused huge wildfires in parts of the island( and elsewhere – Athens elderly population suffered a lot sadly) – but not all – the majority we toured around and we went around the whole island – was very green. Still very hot when we were there, saw fire start right in front of us and run up the hill at high speed. Always happened; what gets me is that none of these marxist bullshitters ever address how these fires happen – could it be that a temperate climate with seasonal heavy rains followed by long growing seasons provides for fast growing vegetation which dries out and provides the tinder – iow a natural cycle that has gone on for millenia.
In the centuries pre-BC, Greece was a heavily wooded country and wildfires were common. Homer wrote about wildfires burning through forested hillsides and other’s wrote similar passages. This idea of Greece being a sparsely greened, mostly arid country where wildfires are unheard of is an extremely modern invention.
I remember reading an article 18 – 24 months back by Yanis Varoufakis, ex Greek economy minister saying, like other countries, Greece had ignored proper fire control of the forests for years and allowed build up of undergrowth etc just like Australia.
“You can’t put lipstick on that pig.”
Well you can, but it makes the pig look like a low-end wh**e
Just like the IPCC reports.
I think you left off the /sarc tag for the literalists among us.
In the Laughland interview Marcel Crok specifies that the book limits itself to analysing the Working Group One and Two (WG-I and WG-II) assessment report contributions to the AR6 document cycle.
In the WG-I report you will find — in section 1.6.1.4, “The likelihood of reference scenarios, scenario uncertainty and storylines”, on page 239 — the following admission :
NB : In most graphs of IPCC “emissions pathways” you will find RCP8.5 neatly bracketed by SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5.
If SSP3-7.0 is above the “counterfactual” threshold, so is RCP8.5.
The contents of the actual WG-I report are actually very good (in my opinion), once you’ve got past the SPM.
– – – – –
The problems arise with the WG-II report.
They actually helpfully summarise the main points I personally have major objections to in section 1.1.4, “What is New in the History of Interdisciplinary Climate Change Assessment”, on page 131 :
The “historic focus” on scientific papers in (serious) scientific journals is to be downplayed, and replaced by (anecdotal) accounts of “lived experiences” and reliance on (unspecified and presumed infallible) “associated authors” possessed with “different forms of [ so-called / self-declared / ??? ] expertise”.
What matters more are the “societal” goals to be pursued, not any actual data or evidence that those goals are either necessary, desirable or achievable.
Empirical evidence doesn’t matter, what does is that “attributions” can systematically be made — to “(anthropogenic) climate change”, obviously — and, most importantly, that “societal (/ public) perceptions” are aligned with the orthodoxy (/ the Party view).
– – – – –
That is actually correct, though maybe not in the manner you had in mind.
The WG-I report, apart from the SPM, turns out to be (mostly) “scientific”.
The WG-II report, however, is openly “Marxist”, and pushes whatever “alarmist” low-probability high-consequence scenarios are required to advance “the cause”.
“Proof ?”, you ask ?
Just count how many times the “counterfactual” — according to the IPCC’s WG-I team (!) — “RCP8.5” (or “RCP 8.5”, with a space character) or “SSP5-8.5” strings appear in the WG-II report compared to the numbers for all other “emissions pathways” combined …
– – – – –
PS : I have read all of the AR6 WG-I (The Scientific Basis) report, and “rapidly skimmed” all of the WG-II (adaptation) report.
I have only “rapidly skimmed” the “summary / global / generic” chapters of the WG-III (mitigation) report. It unfortunately appears to be an extension of the WG-II approach.
We’ve used the same tactics for over two decades. Meanwhile climate alarmists have steadily gained power in major instructions, public and private. Two fun insights might help us find better tactics.
”Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”
It would be fine if Einstein said that! As in, it takes an Einstein to see our errors. Unfortunately, it’s an old adage of Alcoholics Anonymous, people who know everything about dysfunctionality. Not so fun.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
But what about the facts and logic we’ve used to fight them? The truth will always win!
“The truth of a proposition has little or nothing to do with its psychodynamics. The notion that ‘truth will prevail’ is merely a pious wish; history doesn’t show it.”
We need friends and co-supporters, alliances, in order to win.
Agree. We/anti alarmists need to be more offensive.
“We need friends and co-supporters, alliances, in order to win.”
I think our side of the argument is starting to pick up supporters as their prices for energy continue to climb. When they start losing money, people start looking for where the problem is coming from. And we can tell them.
WG1 is very bad and WG2 is just plain awful. In some ways they are so bad, quoting them is the best way to discredit them. But we felt the need to summarize the worst parts of them in a shorter volume. Remember WG1 + WG2 = 5,477 pages, mostly BS. Few people, or groups of people (we were a total of 13 people) can read all that.
Andy,
Can you respond to anything I wrote?
Larry, I just read your comments again. I still think what I wrote above. What other issue do you want me to address? FAR was 414 pages and a decent report, even today. WG1+WG2 are 5,477 pages and say the same thing, the story hasn’t changed in 33 years. They are just burying us in excessive excrement. No matter what you quote, someone can quote something, from the same report, that says the opposite. We needed to write a shorter, clearer document explaining the problems. The shear size of AR6 is problematic.
Much appreciated in this corner, Andy.
The numpties prefer Carbon brief to the reports
Very nice work.
That’s strange. I haven’t seen this in the BBC. They always cover everything about the IPCC.
Marcel and I are upset by the lack of coverage by the mainstream media. Hopefully they will begin to cover the book at some point.
Get in touch with Neil Oliver at GB News? Perhaps send him the book?
I really liked Marcel´s Laughland interview!
While a situation like that always is a “he said, but she said” situation, I think his way of talking and approaching this topic is very believable and leaves the audience at least wondering that there might be scientific reasons to be skeptical of the so called consensus science!
What I find lacking here (and basically anywhere else as well) is the emotional outrage about the resulting waste of 1000´s of billions (I know that spells Trillions) of dollars as a direct result of bad climate science.
But again, while I think there should be a bigger place for that Marcel is very convincing because he calmly and knowledgeable argues his position as it should be done in rel science.
Can an alarmist please explain to me:
your view is that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature change, correct?
Ice core data shows CO2 lagging behind temperature change, due of course to oceans outgassing CO2 when warming and absorbing more CO2 when cooling. this is undisputed, is it not? So clearly this shows that temperature change drives CO2 change, agreed?
So then please explain how CO2 can be both the effect of temperature change (as is established in ice core records), and also be the primary driver of temperature change. Wouldn’t this always lead to runaway warming? A small temp increase causes increased co2, which causes more temp increases, which causes more co2 increase, and so on, until some new equilibrium is established, or some other effect drastically drops temps, and then it all starts again, in a sawtooth pattern.
To me this is the ultimate proof that CO2 is not the driver of temperature. I cannot possibly be so. CO2 cannot possibly be a significant driver of temperature, as it can’t be both the cause and the effect. If I am wrong, please explain how I am wrong.
Of course AR6 is worse than AR5 which in its turn is worse than AR4. It has to be. If AR6 were not more alarmist than AR5 some politicians might think: mission accomplished. And IPCC would have made itself surplus to requirements.