A free-market energy blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Back at Ya, IPCC: ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science’ (Part II)

“There is no longer any getting around it. What we are dealing with here is nothing short of massive and systematic fraud. The IPCC and Political-Scientific-Environmentalist-Industrialist Climate Complex are deliberately and dishonestly taking billions in hard-earned taxpayer and consumer dollars – and using it to devise computer models, horror movie disaster scenarios, bogus official reports and countless “studies” purporting to link every imaginable event or oddity to human carbon dioxide emissions.”

The updated edition of Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) – Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science – makes a compelling case that the computer models, hypotheses, and policy prescriptions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are at odds with reality.

The 1,018-page report systematically debunks IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are causing “dangerous” global warming/climate change – and that computer models can be relied on as a credible basis for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios.

The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is illuminating and easy to understand. It should be read by legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science.

Exaggeration Unmasked

The report makes it clear that the UN climate project has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%).

Moreover, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, even under adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or high temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.

The NIPCC also destroys the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and can forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; input data contaminated by urban heat island effects; and rely on simplistic configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignore them), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, volcanoes, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).

This is garbage-in, garbage-out (or Malthus-in, Malthus-out) at its worst: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other GIGO.

The NIPCC authors conclude that existing climate models “should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.” And yet, the deficient models are being used: to justify policies, laws and regulations that stigmatize and penalize hydrocarbon use, promote and subsidize wind and solar energy, and have hugely negative effects on jobs, family energy bills, the overall economy, and people’s lives.

Countries are spending countless billions of dollars annually on faulty to fraudulent IPCC climate models and studies that purport to link every adverse event or problem to manmade climate change; subsidized renewable energy programs that displace food crops and kill wildlife; adaptation and mitigation measures against future disasters that exist only in “scenarios” generated by the IPCC’s GIGO computer models; and welfare, food stamp and energy assistance programs for the newly unemployed and impoverished. Equally bad, they are losing tens of billions in royalty, tax and other revenue that they would receive if they were not blocking oil, gas and coal development and use – and destroying manufacturing jobs that depend on cheap, reliable energy, so that companies can compete in international marketplaces.

Beware of IPCC Spin–and Note One ‘Remarkable Graph’

The latest IPCC report  will be released in a week or so. However, Ross McKitrick and other analysts have reviewed and debunked a leaked semi-final draft. That draft reveals that even the IPCC has had to acknowledge problems with its models, temperature forecasts and predictions of planetary disaster.

As McKitrick observes in a hard-hitting Financial Post article, “Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.”

The graph dramatically shows that every UN IPCC climate model over the past 22 years (1990-2012) predicted that average global temperatures would be as much as 0.9 degrees C (1.6 degrees F) higher than they actually were! This is hardly surprising, considering how defective the models are, and how heavily they depend on the notion that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming.

Notes McKitrick, chair of graduate studies at the University of Guelph (Ontario) Department of Economics: “What is commonly dismissed as the ‘skeptical’ or ‘denier’ view coincides with real-world observations.” We IPCC skeptics want evidence and observations to back up the hypotheses and predictions. Instead, when the observations don’t conform to the predictions, the IPCC ignores the data and trumpets the models, assertions and scary disaster scenarios.

Indeed, says McKitrick, the IPCC is in “full denial mode.” Despite its own graph screaming the opposite, the IPCC continues to insist that it has “very high confidence” that its models correctly represent the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 levels on global surface temperature trends; that it is “extremely likely” that “more than half” of the increase in global average surface temperatures between 1951 and 2010 were due to human influences; and that the planet will “continue” to warm catastrophically unless drastic actions are taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Put another way, considering the 17-year pause in global temperature increases, the abject failure of the models, and the lower confidence levels expressed about other findings in the full IPCC report, increasing the confidence levels attributed to the models and human influences is “incomprehensible,” says Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

The UN IPCC claims are patently ridiculous. It is commonly acknowledged that fully half of planetary warming during the twentieth century came during the first half, 1900–1950, which includes the 1930s and Dust Bowl years, when so many high temperature records were set, and before atmospheric carbon dioxide levels really began to climb. The period 1951–2010 includes not just two warming periods, but also the period when average global temperatures were falling, and scientists were “almost unanimous” that the cooling trend would reduce agricultural output for the rest of the century. Moreover, the planet can hardly “continue” to warm catastrophically if there has been no warming at all for 17 years, following a decade of cooling and a mere twenty years of mildwarming.

Alarmist Countries Show their Hands

It gets even worse. Confronted with all this truly disastrous news on the eve of their upcoming global warming summit, IPCC politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists are trying to figure out how to cover up the bad news. Germany wants all references to the absence of warming deleted from the IPCC report. Whereas 20 years of mild warming were enough to demand immediate drastic action to avoid a climate cataclysm, now it says 17 years of no warming is too short and “misleading.”

Hungary doesn’t want the IPCC to give “deniers” more ammunition. Belgium wants the “world’s most authoritative climate body” to manipulate the data and graphs, by using a different starting year that cleverly creates a more noticeable upward temperature trend. The Obama Administration wants the IPCC to explain away the absence of warming, by saying the mysteriously missing atmospheric heat was somehow absorbed by the upper 1.2 miles of oceans waters, which have not actually warmed, according to ARGO project data, or perhaps somehow in the really deep ocean, where we have no data.

A Massive Fraud?

There is no longer any getting around it. What we are dealing with here is nothing short of massive and systematic fraud. The IPCC and Political-Scientific-Environmentalist-Industrialist Climate Complex are deliberately and dishonestly taking billions in hard-earned taxpayer and consumer dollars – and using it to devise computer models, horror movie disaster scenarios, bogus official reports and countless “studies” purporting to link every imaginable event or oddity to human carbon dioxide emissions.

These fraudulent materials are then used to justify policies, laws, regulations and agendas that enrich and empower the Climate Complex – but send energy prices skyrocketing, cripple economies, destroy jobs, kill millions of birds and bats every year, and cause the premature death of thousands of people who are driven into fuel poverty or denied access to affordable, reliable modern heat and electricity.

These unethical, immoral actions can no longer be tolerated. They are too reminiscent of the lies, tactics, ethics and results of other infamous tyrannies. We cannot afford a new green or watermelon dictatorship.

24 comments

1 Eddie Devere { 09.24.13 at 9:20 am }

Paul,
I think that you are missing the point about global warming, sea level rises, and lower pH oceans due to increasing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

Let me put it this way. We are currently on a train that, if we continue along the current path, will lead us over a cliff. We are not currently at the cliff’s edge, and in fact, as you state, there are some people who will benefit in the short-term due to warming winters. The road up to the cliff may be a nice road for many (but not all.)
However, in the long-term, the cliff is still there. You (and many others at this blog) seem to be upset and want to “claim fraud” because they IPCC has overestimated the CO2 sensitivity factor…which is part of the equation that tells us how fast we are moving towards the cliff. Does it matter if we are heading 60 mph towards the cliff or 80 mph towards the cliff?
Yes, somewhat, but in my opinion, the important point is that there is a cliff at which point global average temperatures are so high that the sea levels will cause massive flooding (even more than current flooding) and increased droughts in places like Arizona and Texas.
There is no overall fraud in the scientific community. We are facing a cliff. The only questions are: (a) how fast are heading towards the cliff, and (b) what is damage once we run over the cliff?
Before you claim that global warming is “is nothing short of massive and systematic fraud,” I suggest that actual analyze the science and estimate the consequences behind human-induced increases in CO2 concentrations. I have studied this for the last two decades, and my conclusion is that we need to limit the max concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 800 ppm (or least), but in a way such that we don’t crash in the global economy. This involves a delicate balance between ruining the global economy and ruining the global environment. But there is no large-scale fraud. The problem is that we are facing the “problem of the commons.” All 7 billion humans on the planet want a clean environment, but most of us aren’t willing to pay extra to use electricity and vehicles that don’t pollute the environment (i.e. don’t increase the concentrations of particulates, NOx, SOx, and CO2.) It seems that the only practical solution to the problem of the commons is to regulate the amount of CO2 that we are allowed to emit into the atmosphere.
A policy of “do nothing” is not an acceptable solution, and I highly doubt that you can convince a majority of people on this globe that “do nothing” is, in long-run, the best option.

2 The Jury is in! …..Green Energy and Climate Change is an out and out FRAUD!!!! | The Big Green Lie { 09.24.13 at 10:45 am }

[...] Back at Ya, IPCC: ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science’ (Part II) [...]

3 rbradley { 09.24.13 at 11:13 am }

Eddie:

In scare after Malthusian scare, the same players and the same shrillness plays out. Are you surprised that the alarm is fading? There is probably a lot more lower climate sensitivity to come….

You make it sound like this is a solvable problem. We need “20 Kyotos” to solve the problem, scientist TML Wigley once said. Yet one Kyoto is way beyond what the earth can afford given energy realities.

From your own viewpoint, the game is adaptation, not mitigation. And it gets that way more every day as more GHGs are in the atmosphere.

4 Paul Driessen { 09.24.13 at 2:10 pm }

Mr. Devere:

You say we are heading toward a cliff. Where is your EVIDENCE? You simply assume the alarmist claims are true, and that rising CO2 levels causing runaway warming that someday soon will melt polar ice caps, flood coastal cities and cause myriad other disasters. Where is your EVIDENCE? Computer models, assumptions, assertions, headlines, horror movies and predictions of cataclysms are not evidence. Earth’s temperature, climate and weather events are simply not behaving in accord with the models, assumptions and forecasts. Where is your EVIDENCE that this will soon change because of human CO2 emissions? I have seen none, and you have offered none.

Changing the subject to people wanting a “clean environment” with less tsp, NOx and Sox in the air is not an answer, either. Yes! Reduce wood and dung use, and reduce real pollution from coal-fired power plants. But don’t claim plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide is a pollutant. At 800 ppm, CO2 will definitely foster far better crop and other plant growth. What this still tiny portion of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere might do to Earth’s climate is still the subject of intense debate (a debate that the IPCC, EPA and other alarmists still refuse to have or even acknowledge).

I don’t advocate “doing nothing.”

I advocate real science, learning what really causes climate change, preparing for and adapting to whatever comes (warmer or colder, etc), and making sure we have the money and technology to ensure all of the above.

I also advocate demanding that not-so-eco-friendly wind and solar installations be held to the same laws and standards on endangered species, migratory birds, ecological impact studies and other environmental laws that we demand for all other energy industries. As Jim Wiegand and I have repeatedly pointed out, that is not being done — even as wind turbines increasingly devastate bird and bat populations, and as the true impacts are covered up. That can no longer be tolerated.

In both the near term and long run, this approach will be the best solution, in my humble opinion.

Paul Driessen

5 JohnInMA { 09.25.13 at 9:57 pm }

Eddie Devere appears to have chosen to follow the alarmist narrative and tactics. The only way his position works is to first assert a position as an absolute truth not subject to scrutiny. While models have proven to be as yet inaccurate and unreliable in the short term, somehow those who are otherwise convinced of future calamity see a future that cannot be calculated. You would almost think they “hope” or “desire’ the future. But they cannot be certain of it just yet.

That new factors and phenomena are included to explain past inaccuracy should be an indicator that all is not known. It also should bring more doubt upon the probabilistic values that were based on the past work. It is valid and logical to have discussions about contra indication (and by that I mean choosing to NOT take certain actions at this time as in medical treatment), but there is a huge impediment. Those who have been pushing the carbon “science” transitioned from science to politics very prematurely. And they are now stuck. To reverse and allow an open debate weakens the argument. But sadly, the choice to posit a “truth” that is not yet in evidence, and to do so with some faux certainty, only aggravates the political nature of the problem.

Until the climatologists can convince everyone beyond the others within their science who agree that another series of unanticipated or unknown factors that could lessen or reverse the projected course do NOT exist (with high certainty), it is difficult to see the same urgency and the same sureness in the outcome, whenever it might occur. So, even if we all accept that there is a warmer future, the question that cannot be properly answered is how much, by when, and at what cost to society? With the next iteration of the model perhaps we will move another century down the timeline before it becomes significant. The urgency to spend trillions and to decide how to spend them across the globe seems hasty at best until there is greater certainty.

6 Paul Driessen { 09.26.13 at 8:40 am }

JohnInMA succinctly captures the problem with Eddie Devere’s assumptions and assertions. However, “the question that cannot be properly answered is how much, by when, and at what cost to society,” as John posits, is only a small part of the issue. It is also by what (or by whom, from the alarmist perspective) any warming is caused, how much will additional warmth and CO2 will be beneficial, and whether can we do anything about such climate changes, especially what I believe are the vast majority that are caused by complex natural forces that have always controlled climate and weather — except try to understand the causes and directions and amounts of future climate change, try to prepare for it, and try to adapt to it. Once again, dealing with a warmer future is much easier than dealing with yet another cooler … or very much colder … future.

7 John Thomas { 09.27.13 at 6:21 pm }

It is a misconception that the Environmental Movement is benign, well intentioned, and monolithic– it is not. In reality the movement is extremely factionalized and schizophrenic. The legitimate players are the rent seekers, grant chasers, and politicans pandering to a constituency, the Green Lobby.
The True Believers are the Luddites, Malthusians, Narcissistic Xenophobes, Gaia cultists, Margaret Sanger Eugenics disciples, and Pathological Altruists to name but a few. Review your “Silent Spring” and the attending banning and restrictions on the use of DDT. The carnage visited on the inhabitants of the Sub Sahara, South America, and Asia is unconscionable. Read Erlich’s “Population Bomb” and the Club of Rome literature “carrying capacity” is code for destain of inhabitants of Third World countries.. Science is intended to drive policy not the other way around. Policy driven Science misallocates capital but more importantly takes lives.
These modern environmentalists, and I’m including the Global Warming Alarmists, are immoral and inhuman and have racked up a body count that surpasses 100 million and counting, 80% children under five and pregnant women.

8 John Thotma { 09.28.13 at 8:28 am }

Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound has been approved. The project will cost $2.6 BILLON, and it has secured funding for $2 BILLON of that from a Japanese bank. But this is believed to be subject to the project gaining a loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. The contracted cost of the wind farm’s energy will be 23 cents a kilowatt hour (excluding tax credits, which are unlikely to last the length of the project), which is more than 50% higher than current average electricity prices in Massachusetts. The Bay State is already the 4th most expensive state for electricity in the nation. Even if the tax credits are preserved, $940 million of the $1.6 billion contract represents costs above projections for the likely market price of conventional power. Moreover, these costs are just the initial costs they are scheduled to rise by 3.5 percent annually for 15 years.
This project is rated at 468 MW and will produce 143 MW after applying a Capacity Factor of 30.4 % the time the wind actually blows. Life cycle is 20 years therefore this project will produce 24.6 Gigawatts life cycle.
A Combined Cycle Natural Gas Turbine plant studied by the DOE completed in 2010 is rated at 570 MW and produces 470 MW, capacity factor 85%. Cost $311 MILLION. Life cycle 35 years therefore this plant will produce 133 Gigawatts life cycle.
The math Cost / (Baseplate MW X Capacity Factor X 8760 (annual hours) X Life Cycle (years))

9 Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That? { 09.30.13 at 3:00 am }
10 JohnInMA { 09.30.13 at 7:34 am }

To John Thotma: Where did you get your numbers for Cape Wind CF? I have seen a few different attempts to estimate the output over the past decade, or so, it has been in planning and development. But I can’t remember one as low as 30.4% Even the Heritage Foundation has cited a number closer to 37%. And I’m not sure what your capital investment to lifetime output really indicates since it ignores fuel costs for the CCGT.

But you are spot on with many of the details. The contract price for power from Cape Wind is as high as you say. All the differing incentives clearly are not enough to offset it to any significant degree. And small factors add up in my view, too, that bring into question the overall financial and operation efficiency. For example, the project has had a long standing contract for Siemens turbines that after 3 years may not now be the best choice for the location.

Cape Wind can be viewed easily as a boondoggle. The same advocates that see a future climate catastrophe regardless of the most recent IPCC report results (staying on topic…), also excuse Cape Wind as a fundamentally necessary ‘experiment’ in order to develop more economical offshore wind capability. While that is always the case, one has to question why this project, in this location, at this time. The answer almost always must include reference to ‘externalities’ and catastrophe avoidance. Hence the adherence to the need for catastrophe avoidance – even augmenting probabilities in the context of missed short term predictions! It makes projects like Cape Wind more easily labeled “mandatory”.

11 Remembering the 1973 Arab oil embargo { 09.30.13 at 8:59 am }

[...] But they ensure that millions of tax dollars return to “Green” politicians via campaign contributions, to keep the schemes alive. Tens of millions more are funneled annually through government agencies to eco-activists who work full time to promote renewable energy, oil depletion, and climate change myths. [...]

12 Remembering the 1973 Arab oil embargo : WesternFront America { 09.30.13 at 11:47 am }

[...] But they ensure that millions of tax dollars return to “green” politicians via campaign contributions, to keep the schemes alive. Tens of millions more are funneled annually through government agencies to eco-activists who work full time to promote renewable energy, oil depletion and climate change myths. [...]

13 Fallacious claims prop up ethanol | OMSJ { 10.07.13 at 9:53 am }

[...] I point out here, here and here, there is no evidence that rising CO2 levels are about to cause climate chaos. Global [...]

14 Greenback greed behind ethanol, biodiesel subsidies. mandates! { 10.07.13 at 2:43 pm }

[...] I point out here, here and here, there is no evidence that rising CO2 levels are about to cause climate chaos. Global [...]

15 Fallacious Claims Prop Up Ethanol | Somewhat Reasonable { 10.08.13 at 10:42 am }

[...] I point out here, here and here, there is no evidence that rising CO2 levels are about to cause climate chaos. Global [...]

16 Fallacious claims prop up ethanol { 10.09.13 at 1:53 pm }

[...] I point out here, here and here, there is no evidence that rising CO2 levels are about to cause climate chaos. Global [...]

17 Fallacious claims prop up ethanol - Eco-Imperialism { 10.09.13 at 10:23 pm }

[...] I point out here, here and here, there is no evidence that rising CO2 levels are about to cause climate chaos. Global [...]

18 Fallacious claims prop up ethanol | Give Me Liberty { 10.12.13 at 3:01 am }

[...] I point out here, here and here, there is no evidence that rising CO2 levels are about to cause climate chaos. Global [...]

19 Will the Supreme Court permit EPA climate decisions to stand? | Watts Up With That? { 03.03.14 at 3:44 pm }

[…] press releases and emailed conjecture as “peer-reviewed expert reports.” It has been caught deleting graphs that clearly show its computer models were worthless, and employing junk models like the one that […]

20 Will the Supreme Court Permit EPA Climate Fraud? | Somewhat Reasonable { 03.03.14 at 4:46 pm }

[…] press releases and emailed conjecture as “peer-reviewed expert reports.” It has been caught deleting graphs that clearly show its computer models were worthless, and employing junk models like the one that […]

21 Will The Supreme Court Permit EPA Climate Fraud? | PA Pundits - International { 03.05.14 at 6:02 am }

[…] press releases and emailed conjecture as “peer-reviewed expert reports.” It has been caught deleting graphs that clearly show its computer models were worthless, and employing junk models like the one that […]

22 Will the Supreme Court permit EPA climate fraud? : WesternFront America { 03.10.14 at 8:47 am }

[…] press releases and emailed conjecture as “peer-reviewed expert reports.” It has been caught deleting graphs that clearly show its computer models were worthless, and employing junk models like the one that […]

23 jimpeel { 03.11.14 at 12:12 pm }

Eddie Devere,

Warmer weather creates a more friendly environment for plants and longer growing seasons. As a result there is more food production. Conversely, cooler weather is less friendly to growth and results in shorter growing seasons.

If you are successful in your endeavor to cool the planet, are you willing to take responsibility for the millions or people, mostly the poor and underprivileged in third world countries, who will starve to death due to your efforts?

24 Will the Supreme Court permit EPA climate fraud? { 03.11.14 at 9:33 pm }

[…] press releases and emailed conjecture as “peer-reviewed expert reports.” It has been caught deleting graphs that clearly show its computer models were worthless, and employing junk models like the one that […]

Leave a Comment