By Andy May
Clintel’s Marcel Crok gave the Keynote Lecture at the Climate Realism conference: The Climate Emergency is Canceled. The conference was in Copenhagen, Denmark in their beautiful Parliament building. His presentation is in English (Marcel’s English is very good) and his presentation can be viewed can be viewed on Youtube here.
Marcel Crok:
“The errors we documented in [AR6] are so bad and so striking that one day [the IPCC must] react. … The IPCC should reform, or it should be dismantled. … [Currently] the IPCC is a really bad source…”
Marcel Crok
In my opinion, AR6 is the worst and most biased of the six major IPCC reports. Marcel’s message that there is no climate emergency and that the latest IPCC report, AR6, is deeply flawed and contains many critical errors. We document many of these errors in Clintel’s new book, The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, An analysis of AR6. There are errors of omission; that is, ignoring published evidence that is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that climate change is dangerous, as well as errors of bias.
Marcel highlights the resurrection of the infamous hockey stick from the third IPCC report, and tells the story of the refutation of the original, which he was involved in. The new AR6 hockey stick is thoroughly debunked in Chapter one of the book by Javier Vinós. Marcel also highlights how AR6 cites one flawed paper that attributes disaster losses to climate change, while 52 others, which were not cited, did not find a connection between climate and disaster losses. This error of omission is discussed in detail in Chapter 12 of the book. The authors of the book chapters include Javier Vinós, Kip Hansen, Nicola Scafetta, Fritz Vahrenholt, Ross McKitrick, Ole Humlum, as well as Marcel and me and a number of helpful reviewers.
In his talk Marcel mentions that precisely that day protesters around the world demonstrated for the climate. Even so, the good news from the conference is that Clintel, Climate Realism, and our book show there is no climate emergency. This well-supported conclusion is ignored by the mainstream media. It seems that only the unlikely view that there is an impending climate catastrophe is presented to the public, which is, itself, a catastrophe.
Works Cited
Crok, M., & May, A. (2023). The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, An Analysis of AR6.
Download Marcel’s powerpoint slides from the conference here.
Speaking IN the paliament BUILDING is not the same as speaking TO the paliament.
Hans Erren: “Speaking IN the paliament BUILDING is not the same as speaking TO the paliament”
WR: As such: correct. But the invitation for the climate conference came from a member of parliament.
That being said: the presentation by Marcel was a very good and very interesting one. Everyone is invited to listen to his talk: this is the link.
Sorry, the link does not show up. The link is found here: https://klimarealisme.dk/2023/10/05/klimakonferencen-marcel-crok/
That page looks to have been hacked, sending you to an online casino. Use the direct link to youtube.
This has also been claimed for conferences on covid vaccines. If you hire a committee room in the House of Commons then it is within the precincts of the U.K. parliament but isn’t in parliament, the same as if you hired a room in Congress or the Senate.
Interesting- didn’t know you can hire a room in Parliament or Congress. Who can do this? Any group? I can’t imagine why Parliament or Congress would even allow this. I’d think it would be a distraction.
And, possibly, a security risk, too.
Auto
Hans, I did not claim he spoke to the Parliament, only in the building. The second sentence is explicit about that.
Agree but the casual reader of headlines might get another impression.
Prepositions matter. Big difference between “in Danish Parliament” and “to Danish Parliament”.
Any casual reader of English would understand the difference.
Science journals have become sewers for discharging greenhouse crap. IPCC reports are pure excreta. Giving the reports oxygen by undertaking a detailed review is a fools errand.
History will prove just how little physical science is associated with the notion of “greenhouse gasses” trapping heat. It is bunkum.
Climate has always changed and always will. CO2 at trace levels has zero impact.
Sorry, Rick, but I can’t agree with your ” Giving the reports oxygen by undertaking a detailed review is a fools errand”. In order for sanity, science and democracy to prevail, issues must be discussed on their merits. Refusing to review is too close to cancel culture for comfort.
AR6 is only deserving of derision. It is excreta wrapped as a something of scientific value. No true scientist should take any pride in what it contains. Any scientist with integrity would not contribute to the crap it contains.
The fact that these reports continue to be produced simply shows there are enough scientist devoid of integrity to keep this lie going.
The simple fact that the models are being updated at every report without any review of Padt predictions shows how little integrity there is in the process.
All climate models has predicted warming in the Nino34 region – there has been none.
No climate model predicted that Greenland would be gaining elevation.
No climate model predicted the increasing snow extent in the NH.
No climate model predicted cooling in the Southern Ocean.
The whole circus is an elaborate lie.
Well, this is how it should be, but in reality these reports have massive public and political impart, empowering their writers to massively distort science!
Pointing out their incorrectness and shady work is a step to correct this,
Another one is giving the names and their deed of the “science corruptors” maybe someone of influence starts listening..
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/think-of-the-implications-of-publishing
has a good recount of this incidence, where a published peer reviewed paper by
Gianluca Alimonti and colleagues
was forced to be retracted by:
Greg Holland, Lisa Alexander, Steve Sherwood, and Michael Mann, Friederike Otto and Stefan Rahmstorf
!! Remember those names !!
Accodring to Pielke importatn in this porcess is that:
The eight “colleagues who expressed concern” via the media (and listed above) all apparently chose not to provide a scientific comment on Alimonti et al. and no further discussion of the comment was made in subsequent correspondence that I have seen.
Here is (again according to Pielke) the most critical reviewer had to say about the paper and the written addendum by Alimonti:
This is what needs to be prevented and this is why the reports need to be taken down!
No up or down vote from me, CO2 does have an impact, and it is good, not bad. You can read about it here and here
Let me be a little more precise. CO2 at trace levels has no direct impact on Earth’s energy balance. It is beneficial in its contribution to biomass.
As I’ve noted many times- my lawn, gardens, flower beds and small forest are growing faster and healthier than ever before- so any suggestion there is an “emergency” is insane.
My garden has become a small forest in the last few years!
The longer you have lived at one location the more you will notice the increase in health of CO2 loving organisms…
The 44 minute presentation is well worth your time.
No mention of methane and the insane Global Warming Potential GWP numbers that have been featured in every IPCC report.
Global Warming Potential
of CH4 over the years:
FAR 1990 GWP 63
SAR 1995 GWP 56
TAR 2001 GWP 62
AR4 2007 GWP 72
AR5 2013 GWP 85
AR6 2021 GWP 82.5
There’s a war against cattle ranchers, dairy farms and rice paddies. There’s also a war against nitrogenous fertilizers. All based on the ridiculous GWP numbers.
More arbitrary metrics used to scare us peons. See “Fireweather” (to me, a combo of heat days + soil moisture) or listing ocean heat content in EJ ( such a big number, Oh my!).
But I thought by 2007 the science was settled. How could it go up? Lol
btw the Clintel book is well worth reading. I got the Kindle edition.
Have you all noticed how the Climate Crisis has gradually moved away from warming and Sea level Rise towards increasing Wind and Rain? That is how it is being increasingly presented here in New Zealand. Tonight on our popular weekly television Country Calendar farming programme, it showed extensive work by a presumably sensible cherry farmer who is achieving wonderful results by electrifying his orchard, tractors, and fruit-packing operation. Fine, except that his whole message was based on the reduction of that evil “carbon” – shame that he destroyed his overall message of competence by showing his ignorance about the wonderful benefits of INCREASUNG Carbon Dioxide! The ignorance of many is astounding – as if they have never learned the basics about plant-growth and weather.
How did he electrify his tractors?
Andy May states that ‘Marcel’s English is very good’.
Other native speakers of English may disagree, but I found Marcel Crok’s talk hard to stick with and hard to understand.
His message is good, the Dutch accent is potentially charming and the language errors are mostly trivial, but his presentation style is really irritating. ‘Like’, ‘you know’, a lot of armwaving and idiomatic gabbling.
He is trying to get 60+ minutes of talk into 40 minutes – something that never works.
He flashed up many of his slides for just a few seconds. His treatment of ‘Mike’s Nature Trick’ was garbled and incomplete.
He is going at such a pace that he misread his own slide (‘Trick#4’, ‘easy to understand’) giving the acceleration of sea level rise as 0.20 MILLImetres (recte metres) PER YEAR (recte 1901-2018 – an absolute increase, not a rate over time). The slide is only shown for about 40 seconds, making it very difficult for the listener to process the point.
In the next slide I have no idea what he means by the ‘philosophy of the sea level’, part of a graph he displays for a few seconds on two occasions.
It gives me no pleasure to grumble about a talk by someone who has done such good work and who is on the right side, but he would find a couple of hours on a public speaking course would bring him big benefits.
1. This native English speaker does, indeed, disagree. His English was excellent. I easily understood every word (even when, for a moment, I wondered, “Who was Honey Ball with the elephants… OH! Hannibal 😄 ” it was only for a brief moment — and what a joy to have a little chuckle over it).
2. His presentation style was not distracting at all for me.
3. How do you know he was presenting 60 minutes-worth? I was sorry that he seemed to have been told to keep it “short,” for, it made him a bit distressed about the time — that was not the speaker’s fault. Again, the content was, essentially, unaffected by this.
4. Some of the slides were quick, HOWEVER: (1) this was the videographer’s fault (for putting Crok in the scene, instead of his slide); and (2) there is a PAUSE function (it’s on the lower left of the view window and looks like this: || .
5. “Mike’s Nature trick” was discussed as much as it needed to be to make his point.
6. Re: sea level rise — PRESS PAUSE.
7. Re: “philosophy of the sea level” — yes, it was obviously a mistake in translating his thought into English — Did it prevent understanding his point? No.
8. Perhaps, you did not realize that this was a lecture to summarize and promote a book.
“and (2) there is a PAUSE function (it’s on the lower left of the view window and looks like this: || .”
Yeah, that works every time. One can hit that pause control and look at a portion of a video for as long as one wants. Good advise, Janice. 🙂
‘advice’
Thanks for pointing me to the pause button – I’d often wondered what that little thing was for.
Where’s the pause button if you are sitting in a room in the Danish Parliament? Under the chair?
Please see item 4. (1) in my above comment. The videographer could have kept what the live audience was seeing before our eyes. The live audience could stare at the slide all the time Crok was talking.
They could also buy his book 😉
Respectfully disagree with mkelly’s comment that “any casual reader of English would understand the difference” between “in Danish Parliament” and “to Danish Parliament.” As a speaker and reader of American English my understanding, impression, and research specifies “Parliament” is a legislative body and not a building. Inserting an article or preposition in front of Parliament does not make it a building.
I read and learn from Any May’s writing and feel that until this mistake is corrected it will detract from what is otherwise an excellent posting.
PMHinSC, I appreciate your comment and opinion, but I disagree. Marcel’s talk was in the Danish Parliament and invited by a Danish member of the Parliament. Other members attended as well as many from the public, there were 100 in the audience. The second sentence explicitly states:
I see nothing wrong or misleading with the title or the post. I’ll leave it as is. Just because it was not presented to a formal session of the Danish Parliament does not mean it was not in the Danish Parliament, it was, or at least in the building and invited by a member.
Andy,
While I appreciate your reply and certainly appreciate your many contributions over the years, this isn’t a blog on the finer points of grammar. No matter who is correct, this issue has become an unnecessary distraction from your informative post and provides distractors with an argument to wrongly claim this post contains misinformation.
Respectively,
PMH
In, to Danish parliament?
Much ado about nothing. A little less ridiculous than yesterday’s brouhaha about the UAH chart update being delayed.
A good talk given in Copenhagen at the invitation of a Danish member of parliament in Folketinget, the Danish parliament building.
My favorite takeaway was that the IPCC highlighted the one and only peer-reviewed paper that claimed with flawed methodology that there has been an increase in hurricanes, while suppressing the 51 that showed no trend.
No increase in hurricanes *this* year.
NOAA predicted an “above normal” hurricane season this year, then they revised it to “near normal”, and from the way things are going, they are going to have to revise it again to “below normal”.
And more CO2 is in the air. It’s as if CO2 has no effect on hurricanes. Somebody tell the IPCC. 🙂
“…..The IPCC should reform, or it should be dismantled…”
I vote for dismantling it. The U.N. in general is too political to do science in an honest and impartial manner.
The U.N. and national governments with their politics are capable of corrupting everything they touch whenever they want.
Not only the IPCC needs to be dismantled, but the whole UN.
US out of UN, UN out of US!
Get rid of capable of.
I see that so far that none of the climate alarmists that frequent this blog are disputing anything that Marcel said.
It’s hard to argue with established facts. It is also very, very hard to defend AR6. It isn’t just Clintel that has criticized the AR6 bias, many others have as well. I’ve noticed very few defending it, even the most radical alarmists won’t defend it. The IPCC really stepped too far away from the science, and too far into propaganda with this one. As I’ve often said, this is the worst IPCC major report ever.
I seem to recall having seen the “new hockey stick” that Marcel refers to posted by an alarmist here.
As for stepping away from the science? IMO they did that from the start. The fundamental fact that the alarmists will not understand is that the UN, ALL OF IT, is a political body and that politics corrupts everything it touches.
“Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s GISS says: [after AR6 came out]
« Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that
most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast » (see Voosen, 2021).”
[ Footnote from Statistics Norway 2023 paper by John K. Dagsvik and Sigmund H. Moen: https://www.ssb.no/discussion-papers ]
“I see that so far that none of the climate alarmists that frequent this blog are disputing anything that Marcel said.”
That tells us that Marcel is on solid ground. When you call out the climate alarmists and there is no answer from them, there is a reason for that: They don’t have an answer.
Either that or they have not bothered to even watch the video.
Its not ‘TO’ the Danish Parliament and will therefore be totally ignored by the climate change media. Good speech, scientifically correct but zero effect
“but zero effect”
I think it has an effect on our local climate alarmists. You don’t see them disputing anything Marcel is saying. Silence is Golden. And says a lot.
Good stuff all around. Regards to all
EXCELLENT! Mr. Crok presented enough highlights of his painstaking research to accurately inform us about his book’s contents and with enough detail about them to persuade us that it would be well worth buying.
Re: Crok’s remark that the journal “Nature” probably eagerly published a certain paper promoting the human CO2 emissions scam because it likes “drama.” No, “Nature” published it because:
“Nature” is actively promoting the lie that human CO2 emissions are the controlling cause meaningful shifts in the climate zones of the earth to keep up the stuffing of taxpayers’ and reliable power ratepayers’ hard earned money into the pockets of solar/wind/electric vehicle and other scammers’ pockets (such as journals whose holding companies are making a lot of money off those scams).
Nature doesn’t do it for the drama, they are toeing the party line, is all.
All our institutions have been corrupted by CO2 Derangement Sydrome.
Very nice.
This is a great talk by Mr. Crok.
I have learned that the climate alarm community lies the most where it matters the most.
When we are told that all the good scientists agree we have a huge GHG-related problem, that is a very effective lie. A person who believes is likely to think there is a problem. They can’t imagine the entire scientific community getting it wrong. So, the alarmist community tells us over and over that all the smart people agree we have a huge problem. To maintain the message, Nobel Prize winners who dissent are just brushed aside.
It resonates with people to be told that it has suddenly become warmer than it has been for 125,000 years and that the sudden warming corresponds with recent, human-caused GHG emissions. When an average person believes that they tend to think our emissions may be causing a problem. I don’t blame them. I would be concerned too if I believed that.
And when a person is told that the recent warming is also causing a huge increase in extreme weather, they get even more alarmed. We better do something soon if all these wildfires, floods, hurricanes etc. are happening now only after we’ve been recently adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. The extreme weather message works very, very well for the alarmists. In my lifetime I have never heard people talk so much about weather. It’s incredible. Casual conversation about weather has exploded, and most of it involves the belief that extreme weather is increasing.
And the hockey stick too. The message of the stick is very dangerous. The graph presents a picture of a strange new world with a massive, unprecedented temperature change corresponding with fossil fuel use. That’s scary stuff. It’s easy to be concerned if the hockey stick is reliable.
There is also the IPCC’s incredible lie about model agreement being a measure of model reliability. It is a mind-boggling, and very obvious, deception, but it is a very important one. The IPCC needs the models. It’s entire message about the bleak future would collapse without them. So to hide the unreliability of the models, it just goes ahead and equates model agreement with model reliability and hardly anyone notices. Pat Frank and many who contribute here do of course, but not many others. The model message marches on.
And there’s also the critically important claim that the rate of sea level rise is rising dramatically. That’s a very important deception as well because without it the sea level record of the last 100 years would almost single-handedly defeat the alarmist message. How can CO2 be such a problem if its effect does not appear in the sea level record? The acceleration deception takes care of that concern. We are told that the effect of the recent increase in CO2 emissions is not only visible in the record but very pronounced. While Willis Eschenbach rightly begs to differ, he’s a sheep bleating in the wilderness. While I love his piece showing that the claim of material acceleration depends on the combination of non-agreeing data sets none of which itself shows acceleration (which is insane), I still see the significant acceleration claim repeated everywhere, including on institutional websites that rely on the data splicing that Mr. Eschenbach’s article exposes. Mr. Eschenbach is simply ignored like so many of the others who point out problems with the message.
It’s very easy to feel a sense of hopelessness when so many of the obvious deceptions of the alarmists are so well received. But I still think it is important that scientists, including those who contribute on this website, continue to respond to the alarmist claims, especially the really critical ones, like those mentioned above.
That is why I cheer the work of Marcel Crok and the rest of the Clintel group. The Clintel group is going after the IPCC on the issues that matter most to it. They have done great work with their book, and with talks like this one, attacking some of the most important claims of the IPCC. That one slide showing the 53 studies about normalization from which the IPCC selected the only study that supported its preferred message is absolute gold.
Cellphone cameras everywhere just show us what has been going on forever. For instance, California has been having wildfires for millions of years. Some trees even need the heat of the wildfires for their seeds to sprout it has been going on for so long.