AR 5 SPM leaked: Admission/Denial Mishmash Makes Mockery of IPCC

Posted: September 15, 2013 by tallbloke in Accountability, alarmism, Analysis, climate, Forecasting, government, Incompetence, Natural Variation, Politics, propaganda


visit - and buy a mug or something.

visit – and buy a mug or something.

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.

made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased.

For example, in the new report, the IPCC says it is ‘extremely likely’ – 95 per cent certain – that human  influence caused more than half  the temperature rises from 1951 to 2010, up from ‘very confident’ –  90 per cent certain – in 2007.

Prof Curry said: ‘This is incomprehensible to me’ – adding that the IPCC projections are ‘overconfident’, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt.

Starting a week tomorrow, about 40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus – will hold a four-day meeting in Stockholm, together with representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC, established in 1998 by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The governments have tabled 1,800 questions and are demanding major revisions, starting with the failure to account for the pause.

Prof Curry said she hoped that  the ‘inconsistencies will be pointed out’ at the meeting, adding: ‘The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favour of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against – which would  better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.’
Read more:

  1. tallbloke says:

    This is going to be fun. I declare the alarmist baiting season open.

  2. Joe Public says:

    Like roulette and continually betting on, say, Black.

    The more Reds that win, the greater the confidence that Black will win next time.

  3. colliemum says:

    Love the cartoon by Josh!

    Meanwhile, Ed Davey has sworn to ‘fight in the trenches’ for more bird shredders … I hope he turns up on my doorstep, I’ll give him trench warfare … my digging implement, a.k.a. spade, is nice and sharp!

  4. tallbloke says:

    colliemum: Got a link for that?

  5. J Martin says:

    And still they can’t bring themselves to mention the possibility of cooling.

    A fatal mistake which if the current 8 year cooling trend steepens and lengthens sufficiently that it becomes obvious to everyone, will destroy the credibility of the IPCC and bring about the dissolution of the IPCC, or at least a dramatic reform of said gravy train of fools.

  6. oldbrew says:

    It could all end like this.

    ‘Cleese said that the scene would seem heartless and sadistic except for the fact that the Black Knight shows no pain and just keeps on fighting, or trying to, however badly he is wounded.’

    Enough said.

  7. Graeme No.3 says:

    J Martin says:
    This is the Summary for Policy Makers put out mostly by environmental activists determined to put a spin on it. What on Earth did the scientists say?

    A rise of 0.12 per decade since 1951 claims that the temperature is now 0.72 above what it was then. Yet for decades it has been believed that there was some cooling from 1951 to (possibly) 1975 and the satellite and balloon records show little warming since 1983 at the latest. So the temperature went up 0.7 degrees in a decade? Surely someone would have noticed.

    This garbage will be the last we will here from the IPCC, as they have one a good job of disproving global warming. Perhaps they should change the name to IPCU (Int. Presiding over Cock UP.

  8. Graeme No.3 says:

    Sorry J. M.
    I set out to agree with you.

  9. kuhnkat says:

    But, but, but, they ASSURED us there was a HOT SPOT and the OCEANS WOULD BOIL!!!!

    NOW Trenberth is mumbling about Local Hotspots that could pop up anywhere at anytime and cause problems!!


  10. Bloke down the pub says:

    As reported at Bishop Hill, the Met have a response to the Sunday Mail article out.

    Plenty in it to pick fault with but it will be enough to keep the faithful singing from the same hymn sheet.

  11. oldbrew says:

    ‘Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at its warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”’

    Back to the drawing board.

    ‘One of the report’s authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, has said that people should not look to the IPCC for a “bible” on climate change.’

    Now they tell us. What say you Ed Davey, Obama and your like at the EU?

  12. c777 says:

    Its the majority of “policy makers” who need to step back here.
    That’s the problem, will they?
    Until the motion to scrap the CCA goes through parliament and is carried, its business as usual for the scammers.
    Problem is these laws and regulations are originated from the UN and the EU.
    So not as easy as it sounds.
    Maybe Russia, China, India, and the Middle East energy producers might just “put the boot in” to the IPCC.
    Europe has made “rumblings” about pulling back but will they?
    We are dealing with “cultural marxists” and barmy greens there after all.
    Still its a size 12 steel toe cap in the goolies for the warmists!
    What’s not to like?
    A few more years to dismantle this lot methinks!

  13. roger says:

    “A few more years to dismantle this lot methinks!”

    Not if Nigel Farage and UKIP come out with all guns blazing on this subject in the run up to the EU elections and has a good result.
    With the general election then just a year away the LIB/CON/LAB conspirators will drop AGW/CC like a hot potato in an unseemly rush to save their seats.
    Sadly for them they have legislated for annual increases in ROC and othe climate taxes which will be at their greatest as final demands on energy bills drop on doorsteps along with the ballot cards.
    It won’t be difficult to identify the guilty; only five stood firm in 2008 and are worthy of re-election.

  14. tallbloke says:

    roger: I like your thinking. 🙂

  15. hunter says:

    This is actually dangerous. The extremists now don’t care if they are supported by facts in an explicit way at all.
    The true believer’s commitment to the AGW dogma is more important to them than reality.
    They do not care if they are wrong. They care that they are in power.

  16. oldbrew says:

    @ hunter

    So what’s new? 😉

  17. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch.

  18. oldbrew says:

    German Professor Fritz Vahrenholt runs through and over the follies of so-called ‘climate science’ here. So it’s not a short interview…

    ‘The likelihood is that there is no “missing heat”. Slight changes in cloud cover could easily account for a similar effect. That would mean the end of the alarmist CO2 theory.’

  19. tallbloke says:
    “I personally have a very pragmatic view.
    “Say that 30 years from now, science came back and said, ‘wow, we were mistaken then now we have some new information so we think it is something else’. In a world with nine billion people, even 10 billion at the middle of this century, where literally billions of global citizens will still have to get out of poverty and enter the consuming middle classes, don’t you think that anyway it makes a lot of sense to get more energy and resource efficient,” she said.
    “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.”
    “I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices,” she said.
    “I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.”
    Mrs Hedegaard, and the European Commission, have not changed their position that the science that is currently used to justify EU climate change policy is “over 90 per cent” certain that global warming exists and that it is manmade.
    However, EU and other policymakers are worried that the IPCC’s forthcoming admission, expected on Sep 27, that previous forecasts are wrong will damage the legitimacy of climate change policies, such as levies and fuel taxes on consumers to fund renewable energy.

  20. tom0mason says:

    CO2 continues to rise and global temperatures, by any measure, are not rising. Hurricanes and tornadoes are not worse, droughts are not more of a problem than they were 20-25 years ago, sea level rises have not overwhelmed us, and there is still plenty of ice at each pole. In fact our world still looks pretty much as it has for a century or more.

    But still the question goes unanswered as to why?

    Why are we not using the best fuel for the job of generating electricity – coal? Why are we foolishly chasing a pipe-dream called sustainable energy? Why are the developed nation governments handing over billion to salve their souls for industrial progress, why are we crippling our industries and our populations with stupid carbon tariffs and excessive taxes?

  21. adam.j says:

    Ross Mckitrick has a very good article in the ‘Financial Post’ about the failure of the IPCC models

  22. Brian H says:

    Note the IPCC still attempting to quibble about the MWP: “warmer in some regions”.

    Yeah, that would be the regions where there is data on MWP temps, now covering most of both hemispheres. Wankers.