CLINTEL to IPCC/COP26: AR6 Summary for Policymakers Flawed

By Robert Bradley Jr. -- November 4, 2021

“We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.”

The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is a voice for climate and energy realism in Europe and elsewhere. “There is no climate emergency” is their motto.

Founded in 2019, CLINTEL’s “main objective is to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change as well as the effects of climate policy.” Continuing:

To this end:

1. The Foundation tries to communicate objectively and transparently to the general public what facts are available about climate change and climate policy and also where facts turn into assumptions and predictions.

2. The Foundation conducts and stimulates a public debate about this and carries out investigative reporting in this field.

3. The Foundation wants to function as an international meeting place for scientists with different views on climate change and climate policy.

4. The Foundation will also carry out or finance its own scientific research into climate change and climate policy.

“CLINTEL wants to take the role of independent ‘climate watchdog’, both in the field of climate science and climate policy.”

IPCC Complaint Letter

Recently, CLINTEL and the Irish Climate Science Forum wrote a complaint to the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr Hoesung Lee, regarding the scientific mischaracterizations of the Policymakers Summary to the 6th Scientific Assessment.

That letter and full criticism of October 26, 2021 (here) is reprinted below:

We have now carried out an interim review of the AR6 WG1 Summary for Policymakers (SPM) and believe that it misrepresents the latest objective climate science in six key areas:

1. It is not “unequivocal” that human influence alone has warmed the planet; the observed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred through some as yet unresolved combination of anthropogenic and natural influences.
2. The new “hockey-stick” graph (Fig SPM.1), when analysed in detail, is a concoction of disparate indicators from various time periods over the last 2,000 years, which together fail to recognise the intervening well-established temperature variability, for example of the Roman and Medieval Warming periods and of the Little Ice Age.
3. The incidence of so-called “extreme weather” events is erroneously misrepresented in the SPM compared to the more accurate depictions in the draft main report, which latter identify no statistically-significant trends in many categories over time.
4. Developments in the cryosphere are also misrepresented in the SPM, particularly noting that there is virtually no trend in Arctic sea ice in the last 15 years.
5. Likewise, developments in the ocean are erroneously misrepresented in the SPM; in particular, the likely modest GMSL rise to 2100 does not point to any “climate crisis”.
6. The CMIP6 climate models are even more sensitive than the already overly-sensitive CMIP5 models of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific evidence of low climate sensitivity. The models lead to invalid conclusions on ECS and “carbon budgets”; the likely global temperature increase to 2100 does not indicate a “climate crisis”.

These concerns are summarised in the table overleaf and are then analyzed in more detail in the pages that follow. Our more detailed analysis will follow in due course.

We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “climate crisis” that does not exist in reality.

The SPM is inappropriately being used to justify drastic social, economic and human changes through severe mitigation, while prudent adaptation to whatever modest climate change occurs in the decades ahead would be much more appropriate. Given the magnitude of proposed policy implications, the SPM has to be of the highest scientific standards and demonstrate impeccable scientific integrity within the IPCC.

You may recall that, in 2010, the InterAcademy Council carried out an independent review of the IPCC procedures at the request of the then UN Secretary-General and IPCC Chairman. Among its recommendations were that reviewers’ comments be adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies be adequately reflected in IPCC reports. The AR6 SPM inspires little confidence that these recommendations have been put into effect.

We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably does not offer an objective scientific basis on which to base policy discussions at COP26. It also fails to highlight the positive impacts of slightly increased CO2 levels and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.

Yours sincerely,

Guus Berkhout, President of CLINTEL (https://clintel.org),
Jim O’Brien, Chair of the ICSF (www.ICSF.ie).