Close this search box.

Analysis: The ‘95% certainty’ is that the UN IPCC can’t be trusted

John McLean excerpts:

Consider that claim of “95% certainty”, which is no more than an opinion expressed by a few IPCC authors and approved by a few others.  It has no basis in mathematics or statistics and might just as well have been have been plucked from thin air, which may indeed have been the case.  It is, however, in general accordance with IPCC guidance documents describing how opinions and uncertainties are to be expressed as percentages.  The IPCC maintains it is acceptable to use “expert opinion” in determining these uncertainties, but the track record of IPCC projections and the tissue-thin support for its principal argument that humans are overheating the planet cast doubt on the presence of any genuine experts within the organization.

Consumer authorities would come down hard on any company selling a product billed as “likely safe” (i.e. between 66% and 75%), but apparently it’s OK to spend billions of dollars on such vague statements about scientific matters relating to climate.

More heat being absorbed by the oceans is a straw to which the IPCC, and more than one climate scientist, has been clinging for some time.  The deep ocean is said to have warmed by a very small increment, but the data on which this conclusion is based has become available only in the last decade and the temperature variation is within the range of instrument error. On top of that, questions have been asked about why certain data was excluded from the analysis.

One might also ask how the heat managed to avoid land areas and disappear into the deep ocean without warming the ocean surface or being detected in transit

Governments’ representatives haggle over words and phrases in the Summary for Policymakers.  Any semblance of science that has survived the earlier stages of the process now disappears, a casualty of the political operatives who decide what the SPM will say.
Mendacity, distortion, logical inconsistency and cherry-picking are the hallmarks of the IPCC, the key components of whose supposedly scientific reports are decided by political operatives carrying out their governments’ wishes.

From start to finish the IPCC method is a recipe for disaster. The latest inane and dishonest utterances about that “95% certainty” come as further confirmation that the IPCC and its dubious methods should have been scuttled years ago.John McLean has been a critic of the IPCC since its 2007 report, his work being widely cited in a number of books as well as in the US Senate. His review of  the second draft of the  forthcoming IPCC report resulted in more than 500 comments, most noting the absence of supporting evidence

For complete analysis go here.