Clintel Report Blows Lid Off Biased IPCC Report, Permeated With Errors, Bias

But not the end he was thinking of ? [credit: wizbangblog.com]

Each successive report is spun up for political purposes to look more alarming than the last one, with minimal change to any relevant data.
– – –
The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalized disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, say Marcel Crok and Andy May @ Climate Change Dispatch.

The IPCC, by cherry-picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change.

These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.

The 180-page report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report.

In 13 chapters, the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favor of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.

The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or dismantled.

With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle consisting of seven reports in total.

An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analyzed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC.

In every chapter, the Clintel report documents biases and errors in the IPCC assessment. The errors are worse in the WG2 report than in the WG1 report.

Given the political relevance of what is known as “Loss and Damage” (at the yearly COP meetings, countries currently negotiate donations to a Loss and Damage fund) one would expect a thorough review of the relevant literature.

However, Clintel shows that the IPCC has totally failed in this respect.

For example, a review article on the subject, published in 2020, showed that 52 out of 53 peer-reviewed papers dealing with “normalized disaster losses” saw no increase in harm that could be attributed to climate change.

The IPCC highlighted the single paper that claimed an increase in losses. That paper is – unsurprisingly – flawed, but its cherry-picking by the IPCC suggests they found its conclusions irresistible.

Climate-related deaths

“We are on a highway to climate hell”, said UN boss Guterres recently. But an in-depth look at the mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low.

Well-known economist Bjorn Lomborg published that important information in a 2020 peer-reviewed paper, but the IPCC, again, chose to ignore it.

The strategy of the IPCC seems to be to hide any good news about climate change and hype anything bad.

Full article here.