IPCC – The Saltbush Club

Tipping Points

By Graham Pinn

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) describes a tipping point as a “critical threshold beyond which a system reorganises, often abruptly, and/or irreversibly”. Their examples include melting polar ice with sea-level rise, increasing extreme weather events, and release of methane from thawing permafrost; currently nine potential such events have been identified, none currently occurring.

When initially discussing such events, the IPCC believed a temperature rise of 4C would be necessary for these events to occur, this figure was progressively revised down, to a 1.5C rise making them more probable, the latest figure is 1.5 – 2.5C. When looking back, to what we know has occurred historically, even the concept of temperature increase depends on the starting point.

The chronology of the Climate Change / Global Warming debate

By R. G. McKellar

Early Science.

The Swedish chemist Arrhenius published a significant advance toward the mathematical treatment of global climate in a paper published in 1896. Until that time the dynamics of a rotating planet with the familiar passing of daylight into night had defied scientists. Aarhenius devised a simplified model with the surface area of the Earth converted to a flat disc receiving solar energy at the rate of one-quarter of the incoming flux at the equator (at the equinox). All temperatures were treated as global averages—-a very difficult thing to do when most stations recording temperature were in the northern hemisphere & on land. The method employed an Ideal Atmosphere, which unfortunately did not include water vapour. Water vapour, by its volume, is the most important Greenhouse gas, and by its phase changes solid>liquid>gas>liquid>solid>gas, heat is extracted or released into the atmosphere.

Currently, all computer models use Arrhenius’ basic maths. Aarhenius arrived at the conclusion that there would be a welcome 3-4 degrees C of European warming in the 20^th century—-a very high estimate ( versus ~1degreeC later observed), and much like that coming out of climate models from various universities and meteorological offices to this day. Interestingly, Aarhenius in a 1906 paper did acknowledge the importance of water vapour, but that was subsequently over-looked .

Announcing a New Clintel publication: “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC”

Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report

Amsterdam, 9 May 2023

* IPCC hides good news about disaster losses and climate-related deaths
* IPCC wrongly claimed the estimate of climate sensitivity is above 2.5°C; it is more likely below 2°C
* IPCC misleads policy makers by focusing on an implausible worst-case emissions scenario
* Errors in the AR6 report are worse than those that led to the IAC Review in 2010

The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. 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. Continue reading “Announcing a New Clintel publication: “The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC””

Warm or Cold?

The Sun’s Influence On Climate – Why The Evidence Is Ignored By The IPCC

By Dr John Happs

I’m often asked:
“Why do so many people still believe that we are facing a climate crisis?”

And:

“Why is so much money being spent on reducing carbon dioxide emissions when many other factors control climate change?”

My answers to these questions rest with the following facts:

The general public has little understanding of science and do not appreciate the complexity of climate science. Few understand that climate alarmism is essentially driven by politics and financial opportunism.
Media reporters (there are few investigative journalists) are always looking for alarmist headlines. Unfortunately, the public largely obtains its (dis)information about climate change through newspapers, radio and television.
Politicians are always “sniffing the breeze” to see which way public sentiment about climate change is going. If the public is alarmed, they can reassure us that they can save us from climate Armageddon. This usually entails the wasting of vast amounts of taxpayer’s money.

Since its inception in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has followed the directive it was given by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This stated explicitly that the IPCC’s brief is to:

“Assess the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” (My emphasis) (UNFCCC, 2020)

Should the IPCC find no evidence for human-induced climate change there would be no reason for the IPCC to continue, so we can understand the efforts that have been made over the years for those on the IPCC gravy-train to secure a link between human carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.

Not surprisingly, the IPCC could find no evidence for human-induced climate change because there is none so. . . .

Statement by CLINTEL and ICSF on Release of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)

August 9, 2021
Recognition at last for scientists challenging climate alarmism

Climate scientists from IPCC‐circles have admitted that their new generation of climate models – referred to as CMIP6‐models – are ‘overheated’ and therefore too alarmist. This groundbreaking concession was made the week before the highly‐anticipated release of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) ‐ the flagship 6‐year product of UN’s climate agency, IPCC.

The concession also raises questions on the reliability of temperature forecasts of IPCC’s previous generation of models (CMIP5), which used the extremely high RCP8.5 emissions scenario. Results were often falsely touted as a business‐as‐usual case and used to promote extreme climate action. Continue reading “Statement by CLINTEL and ICSF on Release of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6)”

HOW CLIMATE ALARMISTS USE RCP8.5 TO EXAGGERATE AND DECEIVE

By Dr. John Happs

It is now widely known that there is a complete lack of empirical evidence to show that atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global temperature. Dr. Horst-Joachim Ludecke has demonstrated this fact from readily available data:

https://notrickszone.com/2020/07/29/data-from-2-independent-studies-show-no-correlation-between-co2-and-temperature/

Perhaps not as widely known is that, on those rare occasions when atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature have tracked closely, it is temperature that drives carbon dioxide levels.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/06/news-from-vostok-ice-cores/

Continue reading “HOW CLIMATE ALARMISTS USE RCP8.5 TO EXAGGERATE AND DECEIVE”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The United Nation’s Trojan Horse at Work

By Dr. John Happs

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Carl Sagan : The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Continue reading “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: The United Nation’s Trojan Horse at Work”

Are We Really in a New Climate Era?

By Howard Thomas Brady

The Federal Gallery journal has published this article by Dr Brady in its March 2020 edition. Dr Brady says that “politicians on both sides of the climate debate are making statements that are actually false. In good faith they think that certain propositions are correct”, so he needs to show otherwise.

Read the full article: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/climate-era-brady.pdf [PDF, 311 kB]

Howard Thomas Brady has written the book Mirrors and Mazes: a guide through the climate debate (2016). He has post-graduate degrees in Philosophy, Theology and Antarctic science. He also has a climate website listing various talks and YouTube presentations: http://www.mirrorsandmazes.com.au.

How Michael Mann Helped the IPCC Erase 1,000 Years of Climate History

By Dr. John Happs

Dr. Michael Mann will be in Australia for 6 months during 2020 as Visiting Professor at the Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) at the University of New South Wales.

This is the same university that awarded an honorary doctorate to the late Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, in her book: Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report and the Nobel Peace Prize, described Rajendra Pachauri, the former chairman of the IPCC, as an environmental activist, habitual liar on climate matters and a “non-stop train wreck.” Continue reading “How Michael Mann Helped the IPCC Erase 1,000 Years of Climate History”