The findings of the Resplandy et al paper werepeer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations. Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming. Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected. Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.
With few exceptions, the changes point in one direction – toward pessimism. When IPCC scientists sound too optimistic about the future, the political people apply a thumb to the scale. Big picture, though, this all amounts to intellectual masturbation. That scores of scientific minds participate in this pointless exercise makes one despair. The IPCC report writing process is wholly subjective. As climatologist Judith Curry explained five years ago, when IPCC personnel declare they are 95% vs 90% confident about something, there’s no math behind those numbers.
To sum up, therefore:
1. IPCC reports are a collection of subjective judgment calls. 2. Political operatives at the IPCC can – and do – override confidence levels determined by scientists. 3. These confidence levels likely have no connection to reality.
No matter how undemocratic, sparsely-populated, or terrorism-promoting a nation happens to be, a sentence written by scientists will not survive if that nation objects.
The IPCC is a UN body. Therefore every UN-recognized country – no matter how small, mismanaged, undemocratic, or terrorism-promoting – is entitled to participate in IPCC meetings. Instead of focusing their limited human capital on solving problems at home, these countries send personnel to such meetings whenever a new climate report is being finalized.
Each paragraph of a Summary of a much longer document gets projected onto large screens. The Summary has been written by scientists. But in IPCC land it’s only a draft, totally lacking in official standing until people like the ones in these photographs provide their blessing.
The IPCC is re-wording the glossary definitions of six key terms before releasing the official version of this latest report
Two weeks ago, the media announced the arrival of a new report prepared by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But that 1,200-page document still hasn’t been officially released. Instead, journalists have been relying on a 34-page Summary for Policymakers – which is actually one the strangest documents you’ll ever encounter. Normally, after someone writes a report, they write a summary that strives to accurately represent it. After making both the report and the summary public, they move on. Not the IPCC. Its website tells us 16 pages worth of changes are now being made to the underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment to “ensure consistency with the approved Summary for Policymakers.” Astonishingly, at this eleventh hour, the definitions of key terms are being altered. The authors – whom the BBC recently described as “top scientists from around the world” – had defined ‘global warming’ in a particular manner.
Changes made to 'scientific' report: "It appears immediately evident that an explicit assumption has been embedded into it despite the fact that the scientists themselves chose not to go there."
The UN IPCC "should never be mistaken for a scientific body."