Image credit: sanibelrealestateguide.com
The article summary is shown below. See this link for expanded discussion and evidence. No punches pulled here. In short, the evidence doesn’t stack up, so the author – an expert in his own right – calls the IPCC’s cyclone claims ‘fiction’.
– – –
A top conclusion of the recent Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that the attribution of observed changes in tropical cyclones to human influence has strengthened over the past 9 years.
The IPCC does not justify its claim that both the detection of changes and attribution have been achieved, says Roger Pielke Jr.
So in Part 1 of this exploration, I tracked back the claim and found that it had no support in the one paper miscited by the IPCC in support of the claim.
In this second part, I look at official data on tropical cyclones. The evidence also does not support the IPCC claim of detection and attribution related to tropical cyclones.
Thus, a false claim about tropical cyclones made its way into the IPCC Synthesis Report and its Summary for Policy Makers.
In an ideal world, a blunder of this magnitude would prompt some thinking about how the IPCC performs its scientific assessments, whether it may have drifted from that mission, and if it can do better.
. . .
[RP’s summary]
So where does all this leave us? Well, here is a cherry-picker’s guide to the proportion of major hurricanes:
–Want to show an increase? Start your analysis in 1980.
–Want to show no trends? Start your analysis in 1950.
–Want to show a decrease? Start your analysis in 2002.
More seriously, what does the scientific community conclude when a climate time series does not indicate trends outside the bounds of observed variability?
Detection has not been achieved.
That means there is no trend to attribute. Neither detection nor attribution has been achieved.
The IPCC AR6 failed spectacularly on tropical cyclones in concluding that both detection and attribution have not only been achieved related to an increasing proportion of major hurricanes but that such conclusions have strengthened since 2014.
This is all fiction, misinformation even. Yes, I know these are strong words. The IPCC is far too important to allow errors of this magnitude.
Source here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Hmm, more of… we know the truth, ‘better get the fact checkers in then’ 1+1 = 2 better check and see.
I don’t know why he calls it a blunder. It’s deliberate. Lots of the scientists involved in this nonsense know much of it is nonsense and know that things like attribution studies are garbage. But they believe climate change is happening despite that and believe that calling out errors and other problems will “damage the cause”. So they say nothing. Or else they think that climate deniers are all Trump-supporting neo-fascists who cannot succeed. Look at the lab-leak stuff for Covid to see how scientists who think of themselves as honest find reasons after reason for behaving dishonestly. They have been corrupted but won’t admit it.
“The IPCC is far too important to allow errors of this magnitude.”
What makes you think the “error” was not a deliberate lie expressly intended to mislead?
We are dealing with a subset of the United Nations Globalists, don’t forget.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
The only claim the IPCC has is that they have to support the UN Church of Climatology scare tactic in any way they can or their money supply will dry up and all those climate pseudo scientists will be out of work and the super computers they use to produce their models will be shut down – oh woe.
Thus, a false claim about tropical cyclones made its way into the IPCC Synthesis Report and its Summary for Policy Makers.
When the truth doesn’t support an alarmist position, make something up?