.
Inconvenient climate data again. Time to turn away from overblown alarmist hysteria.
By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
Teaming with the Irish Climate Science Forum, CLINTEL has produced a 17 page catalog of “misrepresentations” in the 40 page IPCC AR6 Summary for Policy Makers, better known as the SPM. Now they have sent this error list to the IPCC Chair and other world leaders. You can read it here: https://clintel.org/clintel-letter-to-world-leaders-serious-misrepresentations-in-latest-ipcc-report/.
The analysis begins with a summary cover letter to Dr. Lee, Chair of the IPCC, titled: “Critique of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM)”. It is signed by Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL and Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF.
The principal conclusion of the detailed critique is stated in the letter, as follows:
“We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through…
View original post 622 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
the more things change the more they stay the same
Ever since the IPCC first report analysts have been decrying the political “summary” for it being often totally crosswise to the actual science. The AGW scam needs constant scare stories to keep the money flowing so once again we have the not so noble Nobel Prize given to the absolutely incompetent climate model while the IPCC reports climate “catastrophe” right on the horizon if we don’t give the gaslighters all our money.
“Meanwhile, conservatives are said to have rejected science if they won’t believe that taxes control the weather.” from moonbattery.com
Better rightly said than left silent:
Obsessive, repetitive mention of COP26 clearly indicates who is already defeated.
Break away.
Also better rightly said than left silent:
Obsessive, repetitive mention of energy doom & gloom is also toxic.
I suspect there are a lot of sensible people (maybe reaching for the tap right now) not looking to be hosed by relentless toxicity.
To sensible folks in the wider community: I suggest there be a very active climate exploration site strictly prohibiting politics and debate.
Critique of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM):
Dear Dr Lee,
We have now carried out an interim review of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers
(SPM) and believe that it misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas:
1. It is not “unequivocal” that human influence alone has warmed the planet; the
observed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred through some as
yet unresolved combination of anthropogenic and natural influences.
2. The new “hockey-stick” graph (Fig SPM.1), when analysed in detail, is a concoction
of disparate indicators from various time periods over the last 2,000 years, which
together fail to recognise the intervening well-established temperature variability, for
example of the Roman and Medieval Warming periods and of the Little Ice Age.
3. The incidence of so-called “extreme weather” events is erroneously misrepresented
in the SPM compared to the more accurate depictions in the draft main report, which
latter identify no statistically-significant trends in many categories over time.
4. Developments in the cryosphere are also misrepresented in the SPM, particularly
noting that there is virtually no trend in Arctic sea ice in the last 15 years.
5. Likewise, developments in the ocean are erroneously misrepresented in the SPM; in
particular, the likely modest GMSL rise to 2100 does not point to any “climate crisis”.
6. The CMIP6 climate models are even more sensitive than the already overly-sensitive
CMIP5 models of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence of low climate
sensitivity. The models lead to invalid conclusions on ECS and “carbon budgets”; the
likely global temperature increase to 2100 does not indicate a “climate crisis”.
These concerns are summarised in the table overleaf and are then analyzed in more detail in
the pages that follow. Our more detailed analysis will follow in due course.
We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does
not exist in reality. The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic
and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation to whatever modest
climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropriate. Given the
magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific
standards and demonstrate impeccable scientific integrity within the IPCC.
You may recall that, in 2010, the InterAcademy Council carried out an independent review of
the IPCC procedures at the request of the then UN Secretary-General and IPCC Chairman.
Among its recommendations were that reviewers’ comments be adequately considered by the
authors and that genuine controversies be adequately reflected in IPCC reports. The AR6
SPM inspires little confidence that these recommendations have been put into effect.
We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis
on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of
slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.
Yours sincerely,
Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL (https://clintel.org),
Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF (www.ICSF.ie).
– – –
Source — https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Critique-of-AR6-Clintel-ICSF.pdf
Paul V, no-one is forcing you to click on articles you don’t like the look of. We just published a big post on orbital resonance and natural variation. Have at it.
Target trouble in Scotland…
Nicola Sturgeon may have ‘over-cooked’ her green strategy, says climate watchdog chief
The warning comes after it emerges the government missed its renewable heat target by nearly half and the amount generated declined in 2020
By Simon Johnson,
SCOTTISH POLITICAL EDITOR
31 October 2021
SNP ministers have also missed their annual targets for cutting carbon emissions for three years running, prompting Ms Sturgeon to publish a catch-up plan last week.
. . .
Scottish ministers only committed £1.8 billion towards the estimated £33 billion cost of converting the country’s buildings to “zero emissions”, prompting fears that families will be forced to spend thousands of pounds each.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/31/nicola-sturgeon-may-have-over-cooked-green-strategy-says-climate/
– – –
So-called plan not working.
Fossil fuel power goes to COP26…