web analytics
≡ Menu

The IPCC still gets it wrong

The IPCC will never get it right

The latest tripe hatched by the oft proven crooked mob within the IPCC would be like a shot of heroin into the carotid artery for the warmistas who were fretting that we might be entering another ice age with September giving the coldest morning in 15 years. Frankly, it beggars belief that anybody would believe a word that came from the IPCC considering the depth of deceit they used to progress an ideology unsupported by clean scientific fact. “The science is settled”! Well, … the science is not settled at all and this article published in the American Thinker two days ago tells us what is really going on. Thanks to MM reader DT for the heads up!

Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a special report on the alleged impacts of “global warming of 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.” To coincide with that publication’s release, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released on October 5 a draft Summary for Policymakers of the fifth volume in its “Climate Change Reconsidered” series.  That report is available online.

American Thinker

October 8, 2018

The IPCC is still wrong on climate change. Scientists prove it.

By John Dale Dunn and Joseph Bast

The two reports tell dramatically different stories about the causes and consequences of climate change.  The IPCC report, referred to as SP15, is expected to claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing an unprecedented warming of the planet’s atmosphere, that it is too late to prevent a warming of 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels, and that nothing less than a dramatic reduction of the use of fossil fuels, possibly even an outright ban enforced by the United Nations, is needed to prevent a global catastrophe.

The NIPCC report finds that while climate change is occurring and a human impact on climate is likely, there is no consensus on the size of that impact relative to natural variability, the net benefits or costs of the impacts of climate change, or whether future climate trends can be predicted with sufficient confidence to guide public policies today.  Consequently, there is no scientific basis for the recommendation that the use of fossil fuels should be restricted.

According to its Summary for Policymakers, the new NIPCC publication shows:

•Fossil fuels deliver affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy critical to human welfare.  Wind and solar are not practical and reliable substitutes.

•Fossil fuels create a better environment for the ecosystem because they require less surface area than renewable energy sources.

•Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain.  Only one is net negative.  Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.

•Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s.

How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions?  Therein lies a story.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body.  It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change.  Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle.  The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.

Now consider the NIPCC.  It is a scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries, first convened in 2003 by the great physicist S. Fred Singer and later chaired by another great physicist, Frederick Seitz.  The NIPCC’s only purpose is to fact-check the work of the IPCC.  It receives no corporate or government funding and so has no hidden agenda or axes to grind.  Most of its participants volunteer their time; a few receive token compensation for many hours of effort.

The NIPCC views the claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change to be a hypothesis to be tested, not a preordained conclusion.  It asks whether the null hypothesis – that changes in climate are natural variability caused by a multitude of forcings and feedbacks – has been disproven.  Its research reveals thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed science journals supporting the null hypothesis, meaning that the IPCC’s mountains of data and expressions of “confidence” are irrelevant, meaningless, and ultimately wrong.

Given their provenances, which report do you think is more likely to be truthful?

NIPCC scientists and experts will be in Katowice, Poland the week of December 4 to release the full volume of “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels” at a counter-conference coinciding with the United Nations’ 24th Conference of the Parties (COP 24).

John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. is an emergency physician and inactive attorney and a policy adviser to The Heartland Institute.  Joseph Bast is a director and senior fellow of The Heartland Institute.  Both are contributors to “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels.”

Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a special report on the alleged impacts of “global warming of 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.”

To coincide with that publication’s release, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released on October 5 a draft Summary for Policymakers of the fifth volume in its “Climate Change Reconsidered” series.  That report is available online here.

The two reports tell dramatically different stories about the causes and consequences of climate change.  The IPCC report, referred to as SP15, is expected to claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing an unprecedented warming of the planet’s atmosphere, that it is too late to prevent a warming of 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels, and that nothing less than a dramatic reduction of the use of fossil fuels, possibly even an outright ban enforced by the United Nations, is needed to prevent a global catastrophe.

The NIPCC report finds that while climate change is occurring and a human impact on climate is likely, there is no consensus on the size of that impact relative to natural variability, the net benefits or costs of the impacts of climate change, or whether future climate trends can be predicted with sufficient confidence to guide public policies today.  Consequently, there is no scientific basis for the recommendation that the use of fossil fuels should be restricted.

According to its Summary for Policymakers, the new NIPCC publication shows:

•Fossil fuels deliver affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy critical to human welfare.  Wind and solar are not practical and reliable substitutes.

•Fossil fuels create a better environment for the ecosystem because they require less surface area than renewable energy sources.

•Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain.  Only one is net negative.  Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.

•Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s.

How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions?  Therein lies a story.

The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body.  It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change.  Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle.  The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.

Now consider the NIPCC.  It is a scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries, first convened in 2003 by the great physicist S. Fred Singer and later chaired by another great physicist, Frederick Seitz.  The NIPCC’s only purpose is to fact-check the work of the IPCC.  It receives no corporate or government funding and so has no hidden agenda or axes to grind.  Most of its participants volunteer their time; a few receive token compensation for many hours of effort.

The NIPCC views the claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change to be a hypothesis to be tested, not a preordained conclusion.  It asks whether the null hypothesis – that changes in climate are natural variability caused by a multitude of forcings and feedbacks – has been disproven.  Its research reveals thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed science journals supporting the null hypothesis, meaning that the IPCC’s mountains of data and expressions of “confidence” are irrelevant, meaningless, and ultimately wrong.

Given their provenances, which report do you think is more likely to be truthful?

NIPCC scientists and experts will be in Katowice, Poland the week of December 4 to release the full volume of “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels” at a counter-conference coinciding with the United Nations’ 24th Conference of the Parties (COP 24).

John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. is an emergency physician and inactive attorney and a policy adviser to The Heartland Institute.  Joseph Bast is a director and senior fellow of The Heartland Institute.  Both are contributors to “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels.”

{ 13 comments… add one }
  • DT 10/10/2018, 6:34 am

    I have lost any faith remaining that the Coalition can return to Menzies Australian Liberals values and National Party values because in the majority, I believe, they are globalists who have been and remain willing to hide behind UN Treaties, contrary to the Australian Constitutional Law, to implement UN agendas here. And that they and the Union Labor Greens side are no different, just now in opposition, for the time being maybe.

    Every time I have emailed my local National MP, often a copy to a Liberal MP in another electorate, there is sometimes a reply stating what is obviously the party line, pacify the voter and skirt around the subject. And recently there has been no acknowledgement of receipt of email, and no regular newsletter. In other words blocked.

    I am also concerned, see MM Forum, that the politicians are preparing to quarantine themselves via legislation from prosecution for ignoring Constitutional Law in favour of UN Treaties. I understand that the legislation would also be illegal?

    My last email letter referred to many of the issues in brief, including President Trump’s addresses to the UN and rejection of socialism and globalism, and UN interfering in the internal affairs of member nations. The Liberal MP received the email letter and acknowledged it, but has yet to respond.

    What a sad state of affairs.

    • luk1955 10/10/2018, 7:33 am

      Hey DT I’ve written around 2 dozen letters to pollies the last 2 years, and get a standard reply that completely avoids the subject I brought up. Send by email, many were largely ignored and not replied to. More proof that our politicians are controlled by large companies and the banks, and that pollies march to the corporate drumming. Which is why all our government agencies have ABNs. They are functioning as businesses and not agencies responsive to the electorate.

      There are no fossil fuels. Crude oil is manufactured deep in the bowels of the planet under conditions of extreme pressure and heat. Just the way the chemical industry works. Fossil is the term used by commies (greens) to imply that the fuels will run out, which has shown no sign of happening. Especially since old oil wells are filling up and being reused now.

      • DT 10/10/2018, 8:27 am

        Hi Luk1955, I have been aware of the crude oil situation and that there are still vast reserves of oil untapped, including oil bearing sands which until more recent years was uneconomical to recover because of the OPEC pricing levels. I understand that Canada has the most potential for recovery of oil.

        Australia still has reserves at capped oil wells, the old Commonwealth Oil Refineries capped them in the early 1900s because they could not compete with Middle East oil. But there are also offshore opportunities.

        Very clearly globalism and socialism has taken root here a long time ago and today the politicians are arrogantly ignoring we the people they are supposed to represent as elected to do.

  • DT 10/10/2018, 6:38 am

    All to socialist planning, as admitted by UN Official Christiana Figureres in October 2015 before the Paris Convention that commenced late November and ended in December 2015.

    “•Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s.
    How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions? Therein lies a story.”

    • Bushkid 10/10/2018, 7:42 am

      Do you have a link to that quote, DT? That would be an interesting one to see on any newspaper front page, or headlining a news bulletin.

      • DT 10/10/2018, 8:28 am

        I posted it at MM Forum a couple of weeks ago Bushkid.

      • DT 10/10/2018, 8:34 am
      • Bushkid 10/10/2018, 8:13 pm

        Thanks DT, much appreciated. Apologies for the delay in replying, been out toiling all day.
        Not sure why I still bother though, if these IPCC nutters get their way, I’ll not have a clientele to service, nor be able to travel to any few that might remain. I’ll be damned if I’ll let them turn me into Soylent Green, though!

    • Neville 11/10/2018, 1:40 am

      and that other quote from the infamous Christiana Figureres: (I’m paraphrasing)
      “Don’t care whether Global Warming is right or wrong; this is the greatest opportunity we’ve ever had to totally change the economic system of the planet”

  • Peter W 10/10/2018, 7:26 am

    With you there DT. I have given up communicating with LNP politicians with the latest stating that they have pushed me into voting for the AC, PHON and any other conservative independent.

  • DT 10/10/2018, 8:31 am
    • DT 10/10/2018, 9:03 am

      And UN Treaties also should not be implemented here in Australia, see The Constitution.

      So how are politicians so brazenly getting away with implementation?

  • Graham 10/10/2018, 2:24 pm

    Scomo says he’s not going to give any more money to the IPCC and he’s not going to be led by the nose by these UN institutions. At the same time he says he’s sticking with the Paris Agreement (because we signed it). In effect he’s saying it’s completely worthless, we won’t be held to it but we won’t back out. This is all pollie speak to appease the nutters running the EU. The sooner the EU falls apart the better and we can revert to sanity.

Leave a Comment