Paul Homewood: 'This new climate report is not an objective or an honest assessment of the state of the climate, particularly in relation to the US. Instead, it is a highly partisan and politicized report, designed to promote alarmism. There has been much talk of the need for red and blue teams, to challenge lazy consensus. It is now time for this to happen, so that this Report can be constructively assessed and, where appropriate, criticized. One of the tasks of a counter group should be to produce their own state of the climate assessment. The climate mafia have had it their own way for far too long.'
The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission...This isn’t the only example of highlighting a recent trend but failing to place it in complete historical context. The report’s executive summary declares that U.S. heat waves have become more common since the mid-1960s, although acknowledging the 1930s Dust Bowl as the peak period for extreme heat. These deficiencies in the new climate report are typical of many others that set the report’s tone. Consider the different perception that results from “sea level is rising no more rapidly than it did in 1940” instead of “sea level rise has accelerated in recent decades,” or from “heat waves are no more common now than they were in 1900” versus “heat waves have become more frequent since 1960.” Both statements in each pair are true, but each alone fails to tell the full story.
Report takes "purely speculative results found in a scholarly journal article and report them as established scientific facts. Even better, supplement the factual looking statement with a parenthetical confidence level — very high, high, medium or low — which is also stated as a fact. This confidence level approach raises a host of issues and pernicious confusions. These are what my old professor would call “weasel words.” They deliberately convey a false meaning."
"There is no hint of these disagreements in the CSSR. Instead the confidence levels appear magically out of the mist, as though they were some kind of objective measurement of something, like the weight of a ham."