Written evidence submitted by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (IPC0042)

 

 

  1. As senior editors and lead authors for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIIPCC), we are pleased to provide you with brief comments questions asked in your “Select Committee Announcement 31.”

 

  1. These matters are discussed in greater detail in three books, a Summary for Policymakers, and a policy brief we coauthored since 2009: Climate Change Reconsidered (Idso and Singer, 2009), Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report (Idso, Carter, and Singer, 2011), Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (Idso, Carter, and Singer, 2013a), Summary for Policymakers – CCRII (Idso, Carter, and Singer, 2013b), and “Scientific Critique of the IPCC’s 2013 Summary for Policymakers” (Idso, Carter, Singer, and Soon, 2013), all available online at www.climatechangereconsidered.org or in printed form from The Heartland Institute, One South Wacker Drive Suite 2740, Chicago, Illinois 60606 USA.

 

 

  1. Qualifications

 

  1. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.

 

  1. In September 2013 – two weeks prior to the release of the fifth assessment report (AR5) of the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – NIPCC released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, the fourth in its series of alternative reports to the alarmist reports of the IPCC. Nearly 50 scientists from 15 countries participated as authors, contributors, or reviewers, of the 1,000-page peer-reviewed report.

 

  1. A fifth volume in the series, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, is planned for release in 2014.

 

 

  1. How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report?

 

  1. The conclusions are not robust. Although the IPCC’s reports are voluminous and their arguments persistent, the claims of rising confidence in attributing effects to human greenhouse gas emissions and predictions of future warming and climate change are not supported by scientific evidence.

 

  1. In order to conduct a proper scientific investigation, scientists must first formulate a falsifiable hypothesis to test. An alternative and null hypothesis – the simplest hypothesis consistent with the known facts – must be entertained. The hypothesis implicit though rarely explicitly stated in the IPCC’s work is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes are the result of natural variability.

 

  1. To invalidate the null hypothesis requires, at a minimum, direct evidence of human causation of specified changes that lie outside usual, natural variability. The IPCC has failed to meet this burden of proof. It relies on global climate models that cannot rule out natural variability as the cause of observed climate changes, postulates that assume the truth of the hypothesis they should be testing, and circumstantial evidence that does not bear directly on the matters in dispute and therefore cannot constitute proof of a human impact on climate.

 

 

  1. Have [sic] the IPCC adequately addressed criticisms of previous reports?

 

  1. No it has not. NIPCC in 2009 and again in 2011 produced detailed reports (cited above) summarizing thousands of peer-reviewed studies that contradicted the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Scores of books by qualified authors have exposed the bias and inaccuracies of past IPCC reports, yet the latest report ignores them and repeats the same errors.

 

  1. The research reviews appearing in NIPCC’s 2013 report (also cited above) were posted online at www.nipccreport.org as they were written between 2011 and 2013, making them available for review and consideration by the IPCC. Attention to those findings would have forced the IPCC to conclude that confidence in its computer models and postulates has fallen, not increased, over time.

 

 

  1. How much scope is there to question the report’s conclusions?

 

  1. The report’s conclusions should be vigorously criticized. Dr. Richard Lindzen, emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT and one of the world’s most distinguished physicists, says “I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase” (Morano, 2013).

 

  1. Similarly, Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said “after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans” (Curry, 2013).

 

  1. The lead authors of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science found the IPCC has retreated from at least 11 claims promulgated in AR4 and previous reports or by scientists prominently associated with the IPCC  (Idso, Carter, Singer, and Soon, 2013). We found the AR5 Summary for Policymakers also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements and 11 statements phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science (Ibid.).

 

 

  1. To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?

 

  1. Very poorly, if at all. The NIPCC was formed because the IPCC does not accept advice from scientists who are critical of its mode of operation or main conclusions.

 

  1. There is ample evidence of dissent from what the IPCC claims is “scientific consensus.” Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science quotes directly from nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed articles that undermine or contradict important parts of the IPCC’s positions. The IPCC ignores, minimizes, or misinterprets this vast body of research.

 

  1. More than 30,000 American scientists signed the Oregon Petition stating there is no “no convincing evidence” carbon dioxide is dangerously warming the planet or disrupting its climate. A 114-page directory of the actual names of signers, sorted by state of residence, appears in an appendix to Climate Change Reconsidered.

 

  1. Most climate scientists say we do not know enough about climate processes and lack the accurate data necessary to build reliable global climate models, even though they profess to “believe” in man-made global warming (Bray and von Storch, 2010; Bast, 2010).

 

  1. A survey of professional meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts conducted in 2012 by the American Meteorological Society (AMS) found only 52 percent said they believe global warming is happening and is mostly human-caused. Even fewer believe, as the IPCC’s authors do, that such warming would be dangerous (Stenhouse et al. 2013; Bast 2013a).

 

  1. Surveys and abstract-counting exercises that claim to find evidence for consensus either ask the wrong questions – e.g., they fail to ask if global warming is man-made or large enough to constitute a real threat – or are plagued by methodological problems (Legates et al., 2013).

 

 

  1. Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5’s publication, if so which? What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?

 

  1. Few if any areas of climate science can be considered “settled.” Climate change research is a relatively new and immature scientific subdiscipline. Many of its current practitioners have allowed their views to be influenced by political rather than exclusively scientific considerations. In consequence, and despite the sound elemental physics, chemistry, and geology involved, there is no certainty regarding the most important matter under consideration, the degree to which human carbon dioxide emissions may or may not be causing significant global warming.

 

 

  1. How effective is AR5 and the summary for policymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful?

 

  1. The AR5 allocates spurious probability estimates to its conclusions in an attempt to portray a scientific rigor that is actually absent. This is wholly unscientific, and such claims should play no role in informing public policy.

 

  1. The IPCC’s use of “probability” terminology is not based on rigorous statistical trials or numerical analysis, as is normally used to derive statistically meaningful confidence intervals. Instead, IPCC’s quasi-numeric confidence statements represent considered “expert opinion,” reflecting a process not very different from a show of hands around a discussion table. The terminology confers an impression of scientific rectitude onto a process that is inescapably subjective.

 

 

  1. Does AR5 address the reliability of climate models?

 

  1. AR5 admits climate models are less reliable than it previously claimed, but still defends them. The June draft of the AR5 SPM contained the statement that “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years” (Section D-1, Draft SPM-10), but this statement was removed from the final, published version of the SPM.

 

  1. The published version of the AR5 SPM says “There are ... differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)” (SPM-10); “there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of [cloud and aerosol) processes in models” (SPM-11); and “most models simulate a small downward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, albeit with larger inter-model spread, in contrast to the small upward trend in observations” (SPM-11). These are major concessions to long-time critics of the IPCC’s over-reliance on global climate models.

 

  1. The IPCC doesn’t go far enough in criticizing its models. Internal climate oscillations (AMO, PDO, etc.) are major features of the historic temperature record; climate models do not even attempt to simulate them. Similarly, climate models fail to incorporate the effects of variations in solar magnetic field or in the flux of cosmic rays, both of which are known to significantly affect climate.

 

  1. Climate models project an ocean warming of at least 0.2°C since 2000; in fact, no warming is observed. Climate models project the appearance of an upper troposphere hot-spot in tropical regions; none is observed.  Climate models project late twentieth century warming should have occurred towards both poles; in fact, warming was confined to north polar regions.

 

  1. Climate models underestimate surface evaporation caused by increased temperature by a factor of three, resulting in a consequential underestimation of global precipitation. Climate models represent aerosol-induced changes in infrared (IR) radiation inadequately, despite studies showing different mineral aerosols (for equal loadings) can cause differences in surface IR flux between 7 and 25 Wm-2.

 

 

  1. Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?

 

  1. No it has not. The IPCC offers two alternative explanations for the termination of the late-twentieth century warming phase: that the now-prolonged period of temperature stasis reflects a statistical fluctuation; or, alternatively, that the cessation of warming has been caused by the accumulation of heat in the deep ocean (AR5 SPM, p. 10).

 

  1. The IPCC clearly remains ambivalent about which, if either, of these two explanations is correct. It fails to explain how heat can be transferred to the deep ocean without first passing through the shallow ocean, which has not warmed since at least 2003 (Pielke, 2008).

 

  1. The lack of warming for the past 15 to 17 years (depending on how the trend is calculated) poses a major challenge to the claim that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide rose 8 percent in the past 16 years, an amount equal to 34 percent of all CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. If this rise didn’t cause a concurrent increase in climate temperatures, then other natural forcings and feedbacks must be greater than or operating in the opposite direction from what the hypothesis assumes. There is no reason, therefore, to trust climate models that forecast future warming.

 

 

  1. Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?

 

  1. It weakens what was already a weak case for action. AR5 now admits there has been little or no warming in the past 15 years, that its computer models failed to predict this pause, and that it has “‘Low confidence’ that damaging increases will occur in either drought or tropical cyclone activity” (AR5 SPM, p. 23). Neither previous nor the current draft IPCC reports contain evidence that justifies the implementation of public policy aimed at cutting human carbon dioxide emissions.

 

 

  1. What implications do the IPCC’s conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report have for policy making both nationally and internationally?

 

  1. By failing to provide evidence that suggests that dangerous global warming (or any measurable warming, for that matter) is caused by human emissions, AR5 provides no basis for active policy measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

 

  1. Between 1988 and 2001 (the span of preparation of its first three Assessment Reports), the IPCC was the sole international body providing advice to governments on the global warming issue. With the formation of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) in 2003, a second and independent team of scientific assessors emerged.

 

  1. NIPCC finds “the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming likely to occur if the concentration of atmospheric CO2 were to double, and such warming as occurs is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being” (Idso, Carter, Singer, 2013b).

 

  1. The IPCC’s “Green Team” scientific advice can be weighed against the views of the NIPCC’s “Red Team” of independent scholars. Policymakers have a responsibility to be fully familiar with the arguments and conclusions of both teams.

 

 

  1. Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focused on providing a justification for political commitment?

 

  1. The IPCC has failed to investigate climate change “in the round” and has focused exclusively on matters to do with human greenhouse gas emissions. This has caused IPCC to fail to involve truly independent scientists in its deliberations, with the result that its conclusions are biased and of little value for policy formulation.

 

  1. The United Nations protocol under which the IPCC operates specifically defines climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (United Nations, 1994, Article 1.2). Not surprisingly, directing attention to only the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in the IPCC failing to provide a thorough analysis of climate change. (Idso et al., 2013b)

 

  1. Nature, the prestigious science journal that has long pressed for global action on global warming, nevertheless editorialized that “the IPCC’s mega-assessments are out of date by the time they hit the streets” and “it is time to rethink the IPCC. The organization deserves thanks and respect from all who care about the principle of evidence-based policy-making, but the current report should be its last mega-assessment” (Nature, 2013).

 

  1. Judith Curry, previously cited, says “The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs” (Curry 2013). The scientists of NIPCC agree.

 

 

  1. REFERENCES

 

  1. Anon. [Editorial]. 2013. The final assessment. Nature 501, 281 (19 September 2013)     doi:10.1038/501281a.

 

  1. Bast, Joseph L. 2010. Analysis: new international survey of climate scientists. http://heartland.org/policy-documents/analysis-new-international-survey-climate-scientists.

 

  1. Bast, Joseph L. 2013. AMS survey shows no consensus on global warming. Somewhat Reasonable [Blog] (November 28, 2013), http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/ams-survey-shows-no-consensus-on-global-warming/.

 

  1. Bray, D. and Von Storch, H. 2010. CliSci2008: A survey of the perspectives of climate scientists concerning climate science and climate change. GKSS-Forschungszentrum Geesthacht GmbH. http://ncseprojects.org/files/pub/polls/2010--Perspectives_of_Climate_Scientists_Concerning_Climate_Science_&_Climate_Change_.pdf.

 

  1. Curry, Judith. 2013. IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis. Climate Etc. (blog) http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-diagnosis-permanent-paradigm-paralysis/.

 

  1. Idso, Craig D. and Singer, S. Fred. 2009. Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org.

 

  1. Idso, Craig D., Carter, Robert M., Singer, S. Fred. 2011. Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org.

 

  1. Idso, Craig D., Carter, Robert M., Singer, S. Fred. 2013a. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org.

 

  1. Idso, Craig D., Carter, Robert M., Singer, S. Fred. 2013b. Summary for Policymakers – Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. http://www.climatechangereconsidered.org.

 

  1. Idso, Craig D., Carter, Robert M., Singer, S. Fred, and Soon, Willie. 2013. Scientific critique of IPCC’s 2013 Summary for Policymakers. NIPCC Policy Brief. Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute. http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/critique_of_ipcc_spm.pdf.

 

  1. Legates, D.R., Soon, W., Briggs, W.M., and Monckton, C.2013. Climate consensus and ‘misinformation’: a rejoinder to Agnotology, scientific consensus, and the teaching and learning of climate change. Science and Education 10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9.

 

  1. Morano, M. 2013.MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Rips UN IPCC Report. Climate Depot [Web site].  http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/28/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-rips-un-ipcc-report-the-latest-ipcc-report-has-truly-sunk-to-level-of-hilarious-incoherence-it-is-quite-amazing-to-see-the-contortions-the-ipcc-has/

 

  1. Pielke Sr., R.A. 2008. A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today 61: 54–55.

 

  1. Stenhouse, Neil, Maibach, Edward, Cobb, Sara, Ban, Ray, Bleistein, Andrea, Croft,  Paul, Bierly, Eugene, Seitter, Keith, Rasmussen, Gary, and Leiserowitz, Anthony. 2013.  Meteorologists’ views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (early online release). http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1.

 

  1. United Nations. 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environmental Development (Rio de Janeiro, June 3-14, 1992). http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.

 

December 2013