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