By Robert Bradley Jr. — November 4, 2021
“We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably doesn’t provide an goal scientific foundation on which to base coverage discussions at COP26. It additionally fails to focus on the constructive impacts of barely elevated CO2 ranges and warming on agriculture, forestry and human life on earth.”
The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is a voice for local weather and power realism in Europe and elsewhere. “There isn’t a local weather emergency” is their motto.
Based in 2019, CLINTEL’s “most important goal is to generate data and understanding of the causes and results of local weather change in addition to the consequences of local weather coverage.” Continuing:
To this finish:
1. The Basis tries to speak objectively and transparently to most of the people what information can be found about local weather change and local weather coverage and likewise the place information flip into assumptions and predictions.
2. The Basis conducts and stimulates a public debate about this and carries out investigative reporting on this subject.
3. The Basis needs to perform as a world assembly place for scientists with totally different views on local weather change and local weather coverage.
4. The Basis can even perform or finance its personal scientific analysis into local weather change and local weather coverage.
“CLINTEL needs to take the position of impartial ‘local weather watchdog’, each within the subject of local weather science and local weather coverage.”
IPCC Criticism Letter
Lately, CLINTEL and the Irish Local weather Science Discussion board wrote a grievance to the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Local weather Change (IPCC), Dr Hoesung Lee, concerning the scientific mischaracterizations of the Policymakers Abstract to the sixth Scientific Evaluation.
That letter and full criticism of October 26, 2021 (here) is reprinted beneath:
We’ve got now carried out an interim evaluate of the AR6 WG1 Abstract for Policymakers (SPM) and consider that it misrepresents the newest goal local weather science in six key areas:
- It isn’t “unequivocal” that human affect alone has warmed the planet; the noticed modest warming of ~1°C since 1850-1900 has occurred by way of some as but unresolved mixture of anthropogenic and pure influences.
- The brand new “hockey-stick” graph (Fig SPM.1), when analysed intimately, is a concoction of disparate indicators from varied time durations during the last 2,000 years, which collectively fail to recognise the intervening well-established temperature variability, for instance of the Roman and Medieval Warming durations and of the Little Ice Age.
- The incidence of so-called “excessive climate” occasions is erroneously misrepresented within the SPM in comparison with the extra correct depictions within the draft most important report, which latter establish no statistically-significant traits in lots of classes over time.
- Developments within the cryosphere are additionally misrepresented within the SPM, notably noting that there’s just about no development in Arctic sea ice within the final 15 years.
- Likewise, developments within the ocean are erroneously misrepresented within the SPM; particularly, the doubtless modest GMSL rise to 2100 doesn’t level to any “local weather disaster”.
- The CMIP6 local weather fashions are much more delicate than the already overly-sensitive CMIP5 fashions of AR5, and ignore peer-reviewed scientific proof of low local weather sensitivity. The fashions result in invalid conclusions on ECS and “carbon budgets”; the doubtless international temperature improve to 2100 doesn’t point out a “local weather disaster”.
These issues are summarised within the desk overleaf and are then analyzed in additional element within the pages that observe. Our extra detailed evaluation will observe in the end.
We regrettably conclude that the SPM is erroneously pointing to a “local weather disaster” that doesn’t exist in actuality.
The SPM is inappropriately getting used to justify drastic social, financial and human modifications by way of extreme mitigation, whereas prudent adaptation to no matter modest local weather change happens within the many years forward could be far more acceptable. Given the magnitude of proposed coverage implications, the SPM must be of the best scientific requirements and show impeccable scientific integrity inside the IPCC.
You could recall that, in 2010, the InterAcademy Council carried out an impartial evaluate of the IPCC procedures on the request of the then UN Secretary-Basic and IPCC Chairman. Amongst its suggestions had been that reviewers’ feedback be adequately thought-about by the authors and that real controversies be adequately mirrored in IPCC reviews. The AR6 SPM evokes little confidence that these suggestions have been enforce.
We conclude that the AR6 WG1 SPM regrettably doesn’t provide an goal scientific foundation on which to base coverage discussions at COP26. It additionally fails to focus on the constructive impacts of barely elevated CO2 ranges 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).
Associated
