Archive for the ‘IPCC’ Category


Quoting from the report: ‘Mörner, meanwhile, cautioned promoters of the man-made warming hypothesis that they were going to ultimately be exposed, with catastrophic consequences for the scientific community.’

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, explained Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University. By Alex Newman @ The New American.
– – –
STOCKHOLM, Sweden — The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American.

(more…)


Prof Ray Bates discusses some points raised by a critic in response to his recent analysis of the latest IPCC summary report (SR 1.5).

Reply by Ray Bates to the blog post by Peter Thorne of Maynooth University
H/T The GWPF

A) General comments

1) Prof. Thorne states that my critique of SR1.5 was not peer-reviewed and should not be referred to as a paper.
His statement is incorrect. My critique was peer-reviewed.

I wouldn’t list it in my CV as a journal article, but it is correct to call it a paper (see the Oxford Dictionary). That said, it matters little to me whether my publication is called a critique, a piece, or a paper.

(more…)

Credit: BBC


Media efforts to bludgeon the public into believing the human-caused warming claims of the IPCC have largely failed. The ever-increasing alarm that is put forward is surely a response to the lack of success in scaring people, rather than any reflection of actual facts on the ground (or in the air). In short, media hype has led to climate fatigue.

Public interest in “climate change” peaked in March 2007 as Al Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth” basked in the glow of an Academy Award win, but faded away ever since, The GWPF reports.

(more…)


Not exactly shock news perhaps, but words like ‘extreme’ and ‘unrealistic’ ought to be embarrassing for those who summoned over 20,000 people from around the world to Poland to spend several days discussing it.

From The GWPF.

London, 20 December: One of Europe’s most eminent climate scientists has documented the main scientific reasons why the recent UN climate summit failed to welcome the IPCC’s report on global warming of 1.5°C.

In a paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin explains the main reasons for the significant controversy about the latest IPCC report within the international community.

The IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in advance of the recent COP24 meeting in Katowice, Poland, but was not adopted by the meeting due to objections by a number of governments.

Professor Bates examines some key aspects of the SR1.5 report. He assesses if the IPCC report exhibits a level of scientific rigour commensurate with the scale of its extremely costly and highly disruptive recommendation that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century.

The paper concludes that such a level of scientific rigour is not present in the report. Specifically, SR1.5 is deficient in scientific rigour in the following respects:

● It departs from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in conveying an increased sense of planetary emergency without giving rigorous scientific reasons for doing so.

● It fails to communicate to policymakers a considerable body of important observationally-based research evidence that has accumulated since the Fifth Assessment which reduces the sense of a looming emergency.

● It fails to communicate important information made public by climate modellers since the Fifth Assessment regarding the empirical tuning of models to achieve desired results.

The paper concludes that, in view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.

“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report,” said Prof Bates.

Continued here.

About the author
Professor J. Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the Meteorology and Climate Centre at University College Dublin. He was formerly Professor of Meteorology at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and a Senior Scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre. In his early career he was Head of Research at the Irish Meteorological Service. He obtained a bachelor’s degree in physics at University College Dublin and a PhD in meteorology at MIT. His PhD supervisor at MIT was Jule G. Charney, chairman of the committee that wrote the 1979 ‘Charney Report’ on the effects of carbon dioxide on climate. Professor Bates has been the recipient of a number of awards for his scientific work, including the 2009 Vilhelm Bjerknes Medal of the European Geosciences Union. He is a former President of the Irish Meteorological Society. He has served as an Expert Reviewer of the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports. He is a member of the Royal Irish Academy and the Academia Europaea and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the Royal Meteorological Society.


Are they really as concerned about ’emissions’ as they would like us to believe?

TheDCNF asked 31 businesses, foundations and individuals agitating for climate action if they’d support banning private jets.

Most didn’t respond, including representatives for Al Gore, the father of global warming activism.

The U.N. is calling for trillions to meet the Paris climate accord’s goals, so what’s a few thousand private jets?

(more…)

Yet another climate conference?


These people seem to have become addicted to their own process, which invariably just leads to the next meeting, ad infinitum. Hotels and airlines aren’t complaining though.
H/T The GWPF

The cost of United Nations climate summits have ballooned in tandem with the carbon dioxide emissions officials are trying to restrain, according to estimates put together by environmental economist Richard Tol.

Tol estimates that the costs U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) annual negotiations exceed $150 million in the last three years.

(more…)

Credit: planetsave.com


Half of the assessment of the Earth’s current climate is to be based on crystal ball gazing, which usually means reliance on unreliable climate models that keep showing levels of warming which fail to occur.

The IPCC appears to have secretly changed the definition of what constitutes ‘climate’ by mixing existing and non-existing data, says The GWPF.

The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years.

(more…)

figueresEver-polite Stan Grant tried his very best to keep Christiana Figueres drifting off in a cloud of sob-sister vapours to Warmist Land, where only the transfer of vast wealth from the West to Third World kleptocrats can foil global warming. Yes, Stan gave it his best shot, but he never had a chance

Lord Tennyson with his “tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean” has been an inspiration to Christiana Figueres (left). She was secretary-general of the top-level UN climate body UNFCCC (2010-16)  and spruiked doom on Stan Grant’s Matter of Fact show on ABC-TV on October 9.

(more…)

.
.
The IPCC seems to be long on speculation and short on evidence.

Roger Pielke Jr.

View original post


Clearly the main reason for not putting a news item on the front page is that it won’t help to sell the newspaper. UK weather variability is standard.

Today’s frontpages of most UK newspapers ignore the new IPCC report, reflecting the declining concern of most Brits about the climate agenda – despite the habitual alarm, says The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).  

UK Survey: Brits Are Chilled About Global Warming

Press Release, Global Warming Policy Forum, 11 July 2018

(more…)

Credit: planetsave.com


Déjà vu – another amusing outbreak of paranoia from the ranks of overheating climate obsessives who think the weather depends on how much fuel is burnt, or something.

Climate alarmists are alarmed that a new IPCC report to be released on 8 October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will reject their apocalyptic rhetoric and disaster predictions, says The GWPF.

They blame IPCC scientists for deliberately downplaying the danger of global warming in order to placate the Trump Administration and some of its fossil fuel allies.

(more…)

How constant is the “solar constant?”

Posted: September 19, 2018 by oldbrew in Analysis, data, IPCC, Measurement
Tags:

.
Well…it’s complicated. The available data is less than perfect, but the ‘natural variation option’ (so to speak) is still on the table.

Andy May Petrophysicist

The IPCC lowered their estimate of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate from the already low value of 0.12 W/m2 (Watts per square-meter) given in their fourth report (AR4), to a still lower value of 0.05 W/m2 in the 2013 fifth report (AR5), the new value is illustrated in Figure 1. These are long term values, estimated for the 261-year period 1750-2011 and they apply to the “baseline” of the Schwabe ~11-year solar (or sunspot) cycle, which we will simply call the “solar cycle” in this post. The baseline of the solar cycle is the issue since the peaks are known to vary. The Sun’s output (total solar irradiance or “TSI”) is known to vary at all time scales (Kopp 2016), the question is by how much. The magnitude of short-term changes, less than 11 years, in solar output are known relatively accurately, to better…

View original post 3,387 more words

dr-tim-ball-icTim Ball, head of CLEXIT Canada writes:

 I am proud to be the Canadian representative for the climate exit (CLEXIT) movement. Canada has more culpability than any other nation in creating and perpetuating the deception. It is not hyperbole to say that Canada was central to creating and mobilizing the false claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The idea that humans were causing runaway global warming originated with the Club of Rome. Formed in 1968 by David Rockefeller, it expanded on the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply. The expansion was that world population would outgrow all resources. They made three major assumptions.

  • The demand for resources would increase every year because the population is increasing every year.
  • Developed nations increase the demand by using resources at a much greater rate than developing nations.
  • More nations are changing from developing to developed and accelerating demand.

They produced a few books and reports to substantiate the claims about population and demand. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population Bomb garnered enormous attention. Less well read but still influential was the 1972 book Limits to Growth by Meadows et al. It used a very primitive computer program that started with two components. The known volume of a resource and the current rate of use. Then, using a simple linear trend, it projected the point at which the resource would run out. It also projected the point at which the volume of the resource use peaked. Another book published in 1977, Ecoscience, Population, Resources, and Environment, influenced policy for a long time because of Paul Ehrlich’s co-author John Holdren. He later became Science Advisor in the Obama White House.

(more…)


The notoriety of the next IPCC climate conference (COP24 in November) is already infecting the host country, which is a heavy user of its own coal for electricity generation. Maybe COP should read COPS? They clearly suspect trouble is likely.

Poland recently passed a bill that bans spontaneous protests and allows police surveillance at this year’s world climate summit, reports DW.com.

Civil society groups say Poland wants to silence environmental defenders.

There are still eight months to go until the international community meets for the UN climate talks in Poland’s Katowice, but the host is already causing controversy.

(more…)

Fiji beach [image credit: travelonline.com]


H/T The GWPF

The oceanographer Nils-Axel Mörner challenges the IPCC and warnings about sinking islands, in a recent interview.

Mr. Mörner, you have recently visited the Fiji islands in South Pacific several times in order to research changes on the coasts and sea levels. Why Fiji?

Nils-Axel Mörner: I knew there would be a science conference in New York in June 2017 that focused on sea level changes in Fiji. In addition, it was known that the island nation would chair the 23rd World Climate Conference, which took place last November in Bonn. Thus, Fiji moved into the focus of interest. It was said that the rising sea level had done a lot of damage there. I wanted to check with my own eyes if that is true.

(more…)

Open Letter to
Honorable Prime Minister of Fiji and President of COP23
Frank Bainimarama
Mr. President,
The community assembled at the COP23 meeting in Bonn badly wants
temperature to rise according to models proposed (but never verified, rather
seriously contradicted) and sea level changes that may pose serious flooding
threats to low lying coasts provided sea level would suddenly start to rise at
rates never recorded before (which would violate physical laws as well as
accumulated scientific knowledge over centuries).

sea-level-fiji

Figure 2. Sea level changes in the Yasawa Island of Fiji (from Mörner & Matlack-Klein, 2917c). Sea level was high in the 16th and 17th century (1), low in the 18th century (2) and at about the present level over the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries (3) with a somewhat higher level in the early 19th century and with a perfectly stable sea level during the last 50-70 years as indicated by C14-dated microatolls at multiple sites. Consequently there is a total absence of a present sea level rise – i.e. the threat of a future flooding is lifted off.

We have been in your lovely country and undertaken a detailed sea level
analysis, which beyond doubts indicates that sea level is not at all in a rising
mode, but has remained perfectly stable over the last 50-70 years. Hence all
threats of an approaching general sea level flooding is totally unfounded.
Whatever economy, politics and project agendas may want to put in the centre,
the true scientific community must insist that only facts as revealed in nature
itself and in laboratory experiments can provide trustworthy results.
These are the facts:
(more…)


Something for the latest festival of climate obsessives to ponder as Syria gets called out in no uncertain terms.

The Department of State issued a withering and blunt critique Wednesday of Syria’s decision to join the Paris agreement more than a year after its initial draft, reports the Daily Caller.

“If the government of Syria cared so much about what was put in the air, then it wouldn’t be gassing its own people,” State spokeswoman Heather Nauert said about allegations that the war-torn country used sarin gas to put down rebel uprisings.

(more…)

Image credit: emeraldmedia.co.uk


Another example of how the ‘climate industry’ is out of control. 25,000 attendees sounds more like a sports event.

The thousands who flocked to Germany for the United Nations climate summit will end up, rather ironically, emitting thousands of tons of the very greenhouse gases attendees want to regulate, writes Michael Bastasch at The Daily Caller.

The U.N. admits the “lion’s share of greenhouse gas emissions” associated with their latest climate summit, and up to 25,000 people are expected to attend the U.N. summit in Bonn, which kicked off Monday.

Most attendees will get to Bonn by aircraft, the U.N. said.

(more…)

cagwComputer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found.

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors told The Times: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.”

(more…)