Supplementary written evidence submitted by Alex Henney (IPC0056)

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” 

H.L. Mencken

1.              INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.1              The role of the IPCC

In considering the matter at hand it is crucial to appreciate the role of the IPCC, which is set out in “Principles governing IPCC work”[1]. “[The IPCC] shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process…The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy…”.

These statements make it clear that the IPCC is not an academic scientific organization and that it has clear governmental – hence political – input.  Furthermore its aim is not to investigate the reasons for changes in the climate, but to seek out “human induced climate change” – which presupposes there is such climate change.

At the end of September the IPCC published versions of the Working Group 1 (WG1) report “The Physical Science Basis” and the related “Summary for Policy Makers” (SPM); the former was prepared by scientists, the latter by a mix of scientists and representatives of governments.  The comments here are more often made about the SPM, which is the more widely read document.

1.2              The character of the submissions

There are 45 submissions[2] of which two did not appear relevant to the matter at hand[3] and two were from organisations that had an obvious commercial interest in promoting anthropogenic climate change (ACC)[4].  Of the remaining 41 submissions:-

• 11 from the “British warmist establishment” are supportive of the IPCC’s work.  One of these submissions was by an independent scientific writer (Cowie).  Led by DECC, eight were organizations dominated by British “state scientists” (i.e. those either directly employed by the government or reliant upon it for grants). To those are added the submissions by the “Granthams” at the London School of Economics and Imperial College

• One (Gadian), while believing that there are significant climate changes afoot, had a different and critical take on some issues

• 10 are by “sceptic” scientists who are critical of some or many aspects of the IPCC’s conclusions

• 19 are by public policy analysts; all but one are very critical of the IPCC’s work

1.3              Assessment of Assessment

The British warmist establishment accepted with few caveats the views expressed by the IPCC, singing from the same hymn sheet:-

• The conclusions of the AR5 Physical Science Basis Report are robust and there is little to question

• Much, if not most, of the science is settled – there are, however, a few areas of uncertainty

• AR5 reflects the views of most scientists

• AR5 confirms the need for urgent global action to address climate change

• The IPCC is an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge and it has not been politicized

• AR5 supports the government’s effort to cut CO2 emissions

All the submissions avoided discussion of, or attempted to finesse the unreliability of models and consequently none addressed the question of the magnitude of natural variability; all danced around the issue of whether AR5 has sufficiently explained the hiatus in the global surface temperature; none addressed the empirical measurement of climate sensitivity.

In adopting their approach that “all was for the best of all possible worlds” re the IPCC’s work, the warmists ignored 1) the IPCC’s past promotion of pseudo science such as the “hockey stick” and “Himalayagate”; 2) its past baseless claims of increased hurricanes and the spread of malaria due to ACC; 3) the exposure in Climategate of the unethical practices of a coterie of climate scientists involved with the IPCC; 4) its association with the inconvenient inaccuracies promoted by Senator Al Gore; and 5) the various shortcomings of both science and process discussed in this submission.  From the sceptic’s perspective they live in a British bubble of consensus about settled science that is not disturbed by the reality outside the bubble!

The sceptic scientists included some leading North American climate scientists and a physicist of international stature, who provides the advantage of an independent perspective from the debates that vex climate scientists. The main scientific criticisms of AR5 are:-

• There is no substantive evidence to support the IPCC’s claimed linkage between the warming of the climate and increasing CO2 – the conclusions of the IPCC are not robust; there is scope to question many aspects of the science

• It conveys “an alarmist evaluation of the influence on the climate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that does not properly reflect scientific knowledge”, with distortions for political purposes

• The models do not reflect reality; can be fudged with high climate sensitivity; and “are not getting any better”.  They are of little or no value in explaining the past, let alone forecasting the future

• “The handling of uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific”

• There was a failure to assess climate sensitivity from observational estimates which are suggesting much lower figures than used in the IPCC models

• There was a failure to examine natural variability; the role of clouds and water vapour are not properly understood; the contribution of methane has not been properly analysed; the possible effect of the sun was effectively dismissed.  The science is definitely not settled

• Several propose that the IPCC is past its sell by date, and some argue there is a need for a genuinely independent assessment of the realities of climate science

• “AR5 conclusions fatally weaken the economic case for policy action. Both the level of, and confidence in, temperature projections are sharply reduced”

• There are factual errors in the science

The public policy analysts (and some of the sceptic scientists) argue that the IPCC process is not all that it is cracked up to be, notably:-

• It is not exclusively the work of independent scientists. The chairman; the head of WG1; and some of the lead authors have strong green activist credentials.  “The IPCC authors were selected because they were known to agree with the consensus”

• “The growing implications of the complexity of the climate change problem and its potential solutions are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change” - there are many unknowns in climate science

• Apart from Britain where climate science is dominated by politically correct state scientists, there is no sound basis for claims of an international consensus

• It uses evasive and obfuscatory wording to cover over issues which are embarrassing to its main story
• The proposal to rely on renewables to reduce CO2 emissions is impracticable given 1) their high costs and 2) their profligate use of land

• There is general agreement among the commentators that the SPM is a politically contrived document. The IPCC has failed to ensure any compliance with its fundamental principle of requiring a “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” process

• The British attempts at decarbonisation are both ineffectual, expensive, illusory tokenism that will not nothing to save the planet

2.              THE BRITISH WARMIST ESTABLISHMENT[5]

2.1              DECC

DECC stated “that the conclusions of the AR5 Physical Science Basis report are robust.  The report was produced by over 850 independent expert scientists, all leaders in their fields[6] (209 Lead Authors, 50 Review Editors and Over 600 Contributing Authors[7]).  The report took over 2 years to produce and underwent multiple rounds of expert review.  It was also reviewed by the 194 governments which form the IPCC.  They have all accepted the findings.” 

DECC claimed “The IPCC is a highly effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge. It is independent, transparent and attracts top scientists who give of their own time to participate[8]. It has well laid out procedures and is open to both expert and Government Review. We see no evidence that it has deliberately sought to justify political commitment or indeed to propose a policy response.”

DECC has backed down from a previous claim by Secretary of State Davey that “the science is settled” to the more modest claim that “much of the climate science may reasonably be considered, in an everyday sense, to be settled…For example…rising concentrations of greenhouse gases (which no one disputes), a warming world (but it has not warmed for 16 or so years), and related effects such as ice loss (but ice in the Antarctic has increased) and the sea level has risen (which has continued at the same rate as for several centuries).

Then it admits “However, the complexities of clouds and various feedback mechanisms add uncertainties”.  It is, however, not clear whether the references to feedback mechanisms and is an allusion to the uncertainty over the magnitude of climate sensitivity to the level of CO2.  DECC avoided the question of the validation of the climate models, and of the temperature pause.  It does not mention the possible effect of the sun on the climate.  Instead of these fundamental issues the submission refers to ignorance of what are in effect secondary issues.

2.2       State scientists

The submissions by organizations dominated by state scientists, who generally have to be politically correct either to get jobs (e.g. in the Met Office) or to get grant funding; and many of them have been heavily involved in the IPCC process.  They naturally support the AR5 storylines often in certain, if not dogmatic, terms:-

• Met Office has had a major influence on the IPCC.  John Houghton was its Chief Executive 1983-91 and was chairman or co-chairman of the Scientific Assessment Working Group of the IPCC 1988-2002 and lead editor of three IPCC reports.  The period when Robert Napier was chairman of the Met Office from October 2006-2012, overlapped with the period when he was Chief Executive of WWF-UK from 1999-2007.  The current chief scientist is an ardent warmist; a number of Met Office scientists were involved with AR5

ice scientists were involved wss an enthusiastic warmist; a number of Met Office scientists were involved wsiththe AR5ondary is

• Royal Meteorological Society; many of the members work for the Met Office; four of the people involved in the submission were involved in AR5

• Royal Society received £47.8m (68% of its income) from the government in 2011-12.  The Society has a long track record of supporting ACC.  Its submission cites its report “Climate science: A summary of the science” which is very thin document relying heavily on climate models, which are unreliable, see comments in 3.  Its submission cites a Fellow stating that “global warming continues”, a strikingly ignorant observation divorced from any empirical support

• University of Reading, which is closely related to the Met Office, notes that “Academics in the Department have been involved in all IPCC Working Group 1 Assessments”

• Natural Environmental Research Council dispenses government grants for climate research.  The Chief Scientist of the Met Office is on the Council, and it would not be surprising if she had a significant role in preparing the submission (and also in ensuring grants were awarded mainly – if not exclusively – for warmist research projects)

• Professors Corinne Le Quere and Andrew Watkinson are both at the University of East Anglia, have had significant involvement in the IPCC including AR5 (particularly Le Quere)

• Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University has been heavily involved in the last three IPCC Assessments.  His submission appeared to be more subtle than the other “state” submissions.  Thus among other things he comments “No scientific document is infallible, and the process of multiple authorship does not generate infallibility.”  And unlike some of the more simplistic interpretations he admits that “there is insufficient evidence to attribute it [i.e. the hiatus in warming] to any specific cause”

2.3        The Granthams

The two Grantham Institute reports are naturally in the same vein because they are funded by wealthy hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham through the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, which “believe[s] that climate change represents the world’s primary environmental threat today”.  The London School of Economics Institute is headed by Professor Nicholas Stern, who both in his Review published in 2007 and subsequently has made exaggerated claims for the magnitude and consequences of ACC; the Institute is noted less for science than for political advocacy and criticizing sceptics.  The Imperial College Grantham submission was led by Professor Brian Hoskins who (to quote Wikipedia) “has made major contributions to the IPCC.”

2.4              Alain Gadian

Alain Gadian is a senior research lecturer at the British National Centre for Atmospheric Science who has his own ideas about climate change.  He observes:-

• “The role of clouds in the climate system is largely unresolved in climate models, with the physical processes largely underrepresented…

• Further, water vapour is an even more significant greenhouse gas, found mainly in the lowest kilometre (boundary layer) of the atmosphere. The concentration of this gas is very difficult to quantify…

• Methane is a “greenhouse gas” which is between 20-70 times more radiatively active than CO2. Again its contribution is not adequately included, and is a major flaw in the report”

Interestingly he opens up the issue of behavioural characteristics of scientists pointing out “In science accepted theories are difficult to change…I would argue also, the scientific community is traditionally conservative, blinkered and self-preserving…Some would argue that the academic scientific establishment is unable to recognise rapid change. New ideas often threaten the scientific community. They consider bigger computers and satellites alone will provide the solution, rather than new scientific ideas.”

2.5      Comment

All of the British warmist establishment essentially sang from the same hymn sheet, namely:-

• The conclusions of the AR5 Physical Science Basis Report are robust and there is little to question

• AR5 reflects the views of most scientists

• Much, if not most, of the science is settled – there are, however, a few areas of uncertainty

• AR5 confirms the need for urgent global action to address climate change
• The IPCC is an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge and it has not been politicized

• AR5 supports the government’s effort to cut CO2 emissions

All the submissions avoided discussion of, or attempted to finesse, the unreliability of models[9] and consequently none addressed the question of the magnitude of natural variability; all danced around the issue of whether AR5 has sufficiently explained the hiatus in the global surface temperature; none addressed the empirical measurement of climate sensitivity.

In adopting their approach that “all was for the best of all possible worlds”, the warmists ignored 1) the IPCC’s past promotion of pseudo science such as the “hockey stick” and “Himalayagate”; 2) its past baseless claims of increased hurricanes and the spread of malaria due to ACC; 3) the exposure in Climategate of the unethical practices of a coterie of climate scientists involved with the IPCC; 4) its association with the inconvenient inaccuracies promoted by Senator Al Gore; and 5) the various shortcomings of both science and process discussed below. From the sceptic’s perspective they live in a British bubble of consensus about settled science that is not disturbed by the reality outside the bubble!

3.              SCEPTIC[10] SCIENTISTS

John Christy, who is Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and is Alabama’s State Climatologist, recently presented testimony (which is part of his submission) to a Congressional Subcommittee.  He has served as expert reviewer, key contributor, and Lead Author of IPCC Assessments.

He comments “The enclosed testimony begins with an examination of the assertions made by many that severe weather events are increasing and are caused by human interference with the climate system.  The evidence shows this is a false claim.  I then address the IPCC assertion that the warming of the past few decades was caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, yet the tools used for that assertion, climate models, fail a most simple comparison test with observations of the tropical atmosphere[11].  Thus, the models are unable to depict WHAT the climate has done, therefore they are unable to tell us WHY the climate behaved as it did…”

He neatly observes “…the IPCC was written by IPCC-selected scientists and that the document represents their opinions. Many of the conclusions are fine but some of the key ones do not represent the views of many in the broader climate community. The headline statement from the 2013 Summary for Policy Makers baffles me. It reads:-

It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

“Regarding the questions the Committee asks I do not consider the conclusions of the AR5 Physical Sciences Report robust – there is extensive scope to question its conclusions, too many of which are based on climate models which do not reflect reality.  There is also scope to question many aspects of climate science which are far from settled.  As an Expert Reviewer on the most recent AR5, I found the current set of Lead Authors unwilling to inform the readers of many of the failings of the models on which the main IPCC conclusions are based…The IPCC authors, who have the last word on the material to be included, were selected because they were known to agree with the "consensus" and thus the final product is simply the consensus of those who agree with the consensus.  Were there any "sceptical" Lead Authors to provide the true range of views on climate change?  No.  In view of its bias and shortcomings, the conclusions of AR5 should have little relevance for any government’s policy-making regarding mitigation of alleged long-term climate changes.”

Judith Curry is head of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech.  She runs a blog that is noted for the high intellectual quality of contributions and the well mannered behavior of the bloggers[12].  Her response to some of the Committee’s questions were:-

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

“A large number of climate scientists disagree with the views portrayed by IPCC; many of these scientists are included in desmogblog’s list of almost 300 climate change deniers…A reflection of disagreement with the ‘consensus’ is a recent survey of the professional members of the American Meteorological Society that found only 52% agree that most of the warming since 1850 is anthropogenic, which is the principal tenet of the IPCC.”

• How effective is AR5 and the summary for policymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms?

“I have argued that the characterization of uncertainty by the IPCC is inadequate and leads to overconfidence in the conclusions, particularly with regards to the IPCC statement on attribution.  Anthropogenic climate change is a proposed theory whose basic mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly uncertain owing to feedback processes.”

• Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models?

“Figure 11.25 AR5 shows that climate models have significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 since 1990, a period during which CO2 increased from 335 to over 400 parts per million.”

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

“The failure of the IPCC to predict this stagnation in warming is raising serious questions about whether climate models are over sensitive to increasing greenhouse gases. The IPCC’s dismissal of the stagnation as being associated with unpredictable climate variability raises the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by unpredictable climate variability.”

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

“The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. However, the ongoing scientific consensus seeking process has had the unintended consequence of oversimplifying both the problem and its solution and hyper-politicizing both, introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes.”

On her blog she wrote “Kill the IPCC. After years and billions [of dollars], IPCC has failed to document a link between human-CO2 emissions and warning of the earth’s climate…the IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs.”[13] 

Pierre Darriulat is professor of astrophysics at the National University of Sciences in Hanoi; he was formerly Director of Research at CERN.  His submission is of particular significance because he is an internationally recognized physicist, but he is not a climate scientist and thus has no reputational interest in the debates that exercise climate scientists; he is independent in the truest sense of the word. He points out that:-

• “The AR5 report reviews a large amount of valuable work, including a significant part of which has been produced after the publication of the 2007 AR4 report. Its conclusions, as expressed in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), are far from robust; address only partly criticisms of previous reports; and give a distorted view of the full report itself”

• “The AR5/WG1 IPCC report, and particularly the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), conveys an alarmist evaluation of the influence on the climate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that does not properly reflect current scientific knowledge. There is a need to produce a scientific summary addressed to scientists and giving an objective picture of our knowledge and ignorance in climate science, with emphasis on the issues that are less well understood and what it implies to clarify them”

• “What we are witnessing are successive distortions of the scientific message of the AR5 report on the Physical Science Basis: first from the report to the SPM by those who wrote and/or amended the SPM, then from the SPM to the press by those who speak in the name of the IPCC (including the IPCC chairman), then from the press to the general public by green activists who too often behave irresponsibly in misrepresenting the findings of the work… they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message asking for urgent reaction, which is quite contrary to what the scientific message conveys…I am shocked by the unscientific attitude that prevails in green interpretations of the IPCC work. In such a context, I consider that the IPCC scientists should feel morally compelled to produce a scientific summary of their work while refraining from giving the world a message. They should feel morally compelled to answer the legitimate objections that have been voiced…”

• “The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the model predictions, which is far from being the case”

• “The issue of the 15 or so year pause in global temperature has not been properly addressed…[it] may be that the warming which has occurred in the latter part of the twentieth century is only partly the result of anthropogenic CO2 emissions”

The Friends of Science Society, a Canadian organization, provides many graphs showing the unreliability of climate models, then develops the theme that climate change has been closely linked to changes in the solar magnetic field.  Indeed the IPCC WGI Technical Assessment section 7.4.6 says “Many studies have reported observations that link solar activity to particular aspects of the climate system. Various mechanisms have been proposed that could amplify relatively small variations in total solar irradiance, such as changes in stratospheric and tropospheric circulation induced by changes in the spectral solar irradiance or an effect of the flux of cosmic rays on clouds…The IPCC ignored many [the paper claims 123] peer-reviewed articles published 2008 – 2012 that show the sun is a main driver of climate change.”  The submission cites three studies which show strong correlation between aspects of climate and changes in the solar magnetic field…The solar magnetic field has doubled from 1900 to 1991 causing warming. The maximum temperature response is delayed about 10 years to 2001 due to the large heat capacity of the oceans. The solar magnetic field strength has since declined…”:-

“Using NOAA radiosonde humidity data and Mauna Loa CO2 data from 1963, and a line-by-line radiation code, we calculate the greenhouse effect has increased by only 0.11 °C from 1963 to 2008. Extrapolating to a doubling of CO2, we estimate the transient climate sensitivity to be 0.4 °C.”

In response to the Committee’s query whether the IPCC adequately addresses criticisms of previous reports, the Society comments “No - the IPCC continues to ignore natural climate change.”

Neil Hutton is a past President Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists and has written articles on climate science. He comments:-

“The IPCC expect us to accept that with hundreds of climate models which do not match observations and measurements, they are 95% confident that warming since 1951 is human caused[14]. The global average surface record only shows warming in concert with increased CO2 between 1978 -1997.  That is only 19 of the past 63 years amounting to only 30%. There is therefore a 70% chance that CO2 and atmospheric warming are not correlated and the claim that warming is human caused can not be supported…In order to characterize modern warming as unprecedented the IPCC simply evade the eight Holocene warming and cooling cycles [i.e. over the last 15,000 years] of which our modern warming is the last and coolest. Evidence is incontrovertible that the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period had world wide effect and were at least 1degree C warmer. IPPC simply ignore the evidence from the early history of the earth… The focus by the IPCC on only the last 50 years of climate variability is like trying to describe a large richly furnished drawing room through the keyhole.”

IPCC in an effort to preserve credibility have simply written off the Sun, the major source of our planetary energy. Because solar output is relatively constant, IPCC have chosen to ignore a large body of evidence linking solar variability with climate which has the support of abundant peer reviewed measurement observation and experiment to corroborate the sun, together with cosmic influences, are the main driver of climate…The worst aspect of the IPCC report is their total disregard of the solar influence on climate. In the very period where they are 95% confident of human influence we have the most active solar cycles of the 20th Century showing solar maxima 30 to 40% greater than the 19th Century or the first half of the 20th. From 1950 there are six cycles numbered 19 to 24. The daily sun spot maximum at cycle 19 was 200 dropping to 110 in cycle 20. Cycle 21 showed an increase to 163 then there is gradual decrease through cycles 22 and 23 from 155 to 115 and finally cycle 24 is at a low of 65. This pattern of solar variability has a 95% correlation with global average temperature and so there is no need to search for missing heat.”

“The IPCC is a deeply flawed process not scientific but political…Scientific objectivity and integrity have been sacrificed to achieve political goals almost at any cost, including blocking publication, lobbying editors, interfering with peer review and selective use of data. Lead authors are not obligated to address critical comment and for the most part critical reviews are ignored.  The AR5 report has provided no evidence on which policy decisions can be based…What we should do about CO2 is wisely nothing.”

Madhav Khanderkar was a research scientist for the National Research Council of Canada and then for Environment Canada.  He comments “The latest release of the IPCC AR5 SPM leaves a lot to be desired! The SPM claims linkage between warming of the earth’s climate of the last fifty years with increasing concentrations of human-CO2, but provides NO substantive evidence to support this claim! Further the SPM has failed to explain the hiatus in the warming for the last 16 years! Finally the SPM has totally ignored the reality of earth’s climate, which is that “The earth’s climate now appears to be entering into a colder epoch!” With the approaching of the solar grand minima in the next decade or about, there is now a distinct possibility that the earth’s climate could see an onset of an Ice Age type climate in the next two to three decades!”

Nicholas Lewis is an independent self-funded American climate researcher whose specialism is climate sensitivity.  He points out that “There are two principal issues with the IPCC’s handling of the climate sensitivity area[15].  Firstly the inclusion of sensitivity estimates from flawed observational studies that used unsuitable data, were poorly designed and/or employed inappropriate statistical methodology. [Lewis is very critical of the poor statistical methodology of climate scientists]. That obscured what should have been a key message from AR5 – that the best observational evidence now points to the climate system being substantially less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. Secondly, the elevation of computer models over observational evidence. Virtually all the projections of future climate change in AR5 are based on simulations by General Climate Models despite these being out of line with the best observational evidence.”

He argues that “A particularly robust way of empirically estimating climate sensitivity is the so-called ‘energy-budget’ method, which is based on a fundamental physical law – the conservation of energy. Energy-budget best estimates of ECS fall in a range between 1.5°C and 2.0°C (1.25–1.4°C for TCR), depending on the exact periods chosen for analysis. Using the longest available periods that were free of major volcanism gives a ECS best estimate of approximately 1.7°C (1.3°C for TCR)…For the shorter-term TCR measure, the discrepancy between the average of the best observational estimates is, at 1.4°C, also substantially lower than the average of the GCM value of 1.8°C, but close to the energy budget estimate based on the best AR5 data of 1.3°C.”

Richard Lindzen, Emeritus Professor, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences of MIT, is a leading US climate scientist.  He comments that “The claim that 51% of the small warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities is completely consistent with there being no problem worth bothering about. The concern arises because of the claim that models with high sensitivity can still be fudged…to replicate the observed warming…As concerns the more serious questions such as what the sensitivity of the climate is or what the relationship is between global warming and various purported disasters, even the IPCC generally admits to ignorance…As the attached paper notes, virtually all observational tests point to sensitivity less than that of any models, and there is no evidence of any relationship between extreme weather and global warming.”  His submission includes his paper “Falsification of climate models used in experimentation and scenario construction” which explains how the models are constructed and their limitations.

In a blog he observed “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.”

The Non Intergovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) submission was prepared by well known climate scientists Craig Idso, Bob Carter, and Fred Singer based on the reports which NIPCC has published.  The submission states:-

• The conclusions of AR5 are not robust
• The IPCC has not addressed criticisms of previous reports
• The report’s conclusions should be vigorously criticized
• The implicit consensus claimed by AR5 does not reflect reality
• AR5 still defends models
• AR5 has not explained the reasons for the hiatus
• AR5 weakens the already weak case for action

Roger Pielke is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University; he was State Climatologist for Colorado and served as President of the American Association of State Climatologists.  He stated (with backing evidence provided) that “the IPCC AR5 Physical Science Assessment:-

• Inadequately considered the spectrum of human and natural climate forcings and feedbacks. Changes in climate are not dominated by the human input of greenhouse gases

• Failed to report the lack of skill of multidecadal climate model predictions (projections) to predict changes in regional climate statistics when run in hindcast simulations. Such a test is a requirement in the scientific method if one is to have any confidence in its skill to predict future changes in regional climate”

4.              PUBLIC POLICY CRITICS

Barry Brill, formerly a Minister of Science and Energy in the New Zealand Government, comments:-

• “AR5 temperature projections fail to reflect the current internal IPCC disagreement regarding climate sensitivity and its contribution to ‘the hiatus’…:-

      “AR5 is unable to identify/quantify the reasons for, or the duration of the hiatus…The IPCC models did not forecast ‘the hiatus’, and were not even close

      “In August 2013, IPPC lead author Dr Hans von Storch, told Speigel Online:-

“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.... There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. ... The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

• “During 2011-13, at least 16 peer-reviewed journal papers have used recent data and modern diagnostics to show that this historical ‘best estimate’ [of climate sensitivity] had been grossly over-stated. All find that the ‘most likely’ ECS figure is around 1.5-2°C – and likely to be within a range of 1-3.5°C (not 1.5-4.5°C as applied in AR5)”

      “For the first time, the IPCC finds itself unable to reach consensus on a ‘most likely’ sensitivity (ECS) [Equilibrium climate sensitivity, see footnote 14] figure. There are two distinct (and mutually exclusive) schools of thought at about 1.7°C and 3°C respectively. If the former group is correct (so the TCR is <1.5°) [Transient Climate Response, see footnote 14], virtually all warming projections become benign and policy action unjustified.”

      “If a TCR of 1.5°C is adopted, RCP4.5 [RCP=representative concentration pathways, a term introduced by the IPCC] provides a warming range of 1.1 to 1.6°C. Deducting the 0.72°C that occurred pre-1994, this leaves 0.38-0.88°C as the likely temperature increase during the 21st century (midpoint less than the 20th century). If the most likely estimate of ECS proves to be less than 2°C, AR5 does not project worrisome future warming, or sea level rise, except in the extreme case of RCP8.5.”

• “Despite obscure language, the SPM accepts that the 1998-2012 warming of 0.05±0.15°C was not significant, and that a cooling trend (also insignificant) has obtained throughout the 21st Century. Both trends discredit the CMIP3 and CMIP5[16] climate models, which have consistently projected warming of 2-3°C/decade throughout this period”

• At Stockholm, no AR5 consensus could be reached on the first and most obvious explanation – exaggerated sensitivity.  Brill notes “Leaked draft reports indicate much disputation within the IPCC about acceptance of the new and lower sensitivity figures…Consequently, the projections appearing in Table SPM.2 do not reflect the TCR parameter now recommended in the WG1 report. In a word, they are incorrect. The AR5 is not internally consistent”
• “AR5 conclusions fatally weaken the economic case for policy action. Both the level of, and confidence in, temperature projections are sharply reduced”

Marcel Crok is a Dutch freelance science writer who published a critical book in 2010 that focused on AR3 and AR4.  He notes that AR5 failed to give an estimate for climate sensitivity that implied warming will be less than previously anticipated.  He draws attention to the IPCC’s failure to address the significance of “long term persistence”.  When taken into account, the statistical significance of the 0.80C warming since 1860 “is seriously overestimated”.  He also notes how AR5 uses presentational devices to finesse the reliability of models and to avoid accepting that the Transient Climate Response in the models is “considerably higher than based on best observational evidence.”  He concludes “The case for mitigation is less urgent and this means that as a society we could first focus on new technologies that make decarbonisation possible with lower costs than the now available options like wind, solar, biomass etc.”

Ruth Dixon is in the Department of Politics and International Relations at Oxford University.  She commented that “If the IPCC reports are to be seen as truly authoritative, a far more challenging review process should be instituted. This could take the form of a ‘Red Team’ in which experts from other scientific disciplines would be commissioned to undertake a critical review of the IPCC reports, in whole or in part.”  Her submission is the least critical of the IPCC.

Jonathan Drake is a “professional physicist who has spent much free time engaged in independent climate research”.  He comments that “Any and every piece of data that can be forced to support the Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka Climate Change) belief has been seized upon without due diligence or regard to normal scientific practices…there was a great deal of secrecy involved at all stages of AR5.”  He concludes “The IPCC mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge has numerous flaws, not least the fact that it has been established that there are many authors with biases, whether they are vested interests (grants/funding), political or ideological, or simply just assumed prestige.”

Robin Guenier is a barrister with a varied career in business and as CEO of the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency reporting to the Cabinet Office.  He examines the question “To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?”

• He examined the three studies (Doran, Anderegg and Cook) most commonly cited as claiming that most climate experts (usually 97%) agree humans are causing warming. He concluded that the “unsatisfactory nature of these studies means they can make only a limited contribution to this submission”

• He looked at other evidence, “from a 2008 study conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, from a more recent American Meteorological Society study [that found only 52% agree that most of the warming since 1850 is anthropogenic] from within the SPM itself and from, in particular, China.  They suggest that the AR5 findings only marginally reflect climate scientists’ views”

He concluded: “(a) there is insufficient evidence to support a satisfactory answer to the Committee’s question; (b) the only way to establish a satisfactory answer would be to carry out a full, properly conducted worldwide opinion survey (considered likely to be impracticable); and (c) such evidence as does exist indicates that the answer may well be that AR5 reflects climate scientists’ views to only a very limited extent.”

Alex Henney specializes in electric markets and regulation.  He has taken an interest in climate science because of the manner in which the government’s belief in ACC is destroying the electricity market and is adding to costs.  He pointed to errors in some of the science that the IPCC had promoted in the past, and cites Professor Don Easterbrook as identifying factual errors in AR5.  Easterbrook commented of the IPCC claim that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millenia…there just isn’t any nice way to say this—it’s is an outright lie.” He points to other errors and concludes “These are only a few examples of the highly biased, misrepresentations of material in the 2013 IPCC report.  As seen by the examples above, it isn’t science at all – it’s dogmatic, political, propaganda.”

Henney drew attention to the lack of reliability of climate models. He noted that a scientist at the Hadley Centre forecast in 2000 that “British children could have only virtual experience of snow”, and in 2007 climate scientists at the Met Office used their new climate model to (incorrectly) forecast 0.30C warming over the decade 2004-2014.  He applied Richard Feynman’s concept of “cargo cult science” to climate models, and argues:-

“If climate science were a “normal” science the failure of the models to predict the temperature pause would lead many scientists to conclude that the assumptions underlying the models were wrong and they would go back to the drawing board. But climate science is politicised with extensive commercial, reputational and grant funding vested interests hanging on it. So the IPCC tries to massage the failure of the climate models and absurdly to claim an increased confidence in the models as the discrepancy between models and observations increase.”

He drew attention to papers that attributed much of climate change to changes in solar activity and to a new report issued by the National Research Council “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate”, which lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.”  Also Jasper Kirby, Head of the CLOUD Experiment at CERN, recently gave a presentation showing strong correlations between cosmic rays, solar cycles and earth’s climate.

Henney pointed out that the very costly green/decarbonizing agenda is neither particularly effective in achieving its basic objectives or reducing CO2 emissions because the few nuclear plants will at a vast cost have a marginal effect; CCS is not proven; wind farms are not only expenisve, they do not achieve what they claim on the tin by way of mitigation of CO2; residential solar makes offshore wind look cheap; and fresh cut wood chips masquerading as biomass actually increase CO2 emissions.

Nor will our effort do much if anything to save the planet. While the British government is obsessed with driving unabated coal plants off the system, in 2012 the World Resources Institute identified 1,199 new coal fired plants with a capacity of 1400GW being proposed.  Ten 900MW new coal plants are being completed in Germany and the Netherlands. 

The IPCC failed to provide a sound assessment of the state of climate science.  We need a truly independent assessment undertaken by people who have no vested commercial or reputational interest in the outcome.

David Holland describes some of the abuses of process and of science in the first four ARs of the IPCC, summarizing “…the IPCC process has always been over presumptive of the scientific knowledge and has failed to ensure that the experts, who serve it, meet the required professional and ethical standards. The IPCC has conspicuously failed to ensure any compliance with its fundamental principle of requiring a “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” process.  Given, the views already formed by the majority of its founders and their lack of any enforcement of its Principles and Procedures, the IPCC is seen by many as established to provide a justification for political commitment. For these reasons it has never been fit for purpose.”

Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge, comments that “Empirical studies of the global climate during the 20th century all suggest another century like the last and another temperature rise of order 1C. It is only the computer models that produce the higher temperatures and the alarm… The most serious defect of the IPCC 5th Assessment Review, as published, was the truculent and obfuscatory manner with which it admitted the temperature statis since 1996, halved its estimate of the rate of global warming over the last 60 years, and when insisting that it was more certain than ever that man was playing a role, that role is still small in the context of the last 150 years of climate change. A scientific report written by neutral consultants would have been much more upfront, yes, and honest, about these facts.”

He then proposed that if (and he is not persuaded) we should reduce CO2 emissions, then we should do it cost effectively.  He points out “Renewable energy sources are intrinsically dilute at source. One needs all 1000 square kilometres of the Fen Country (now producing food) to generate 0.8-1GW from biomass if we harvested and burned miscanthus, a rapidly growing grass. We already get 1.3GW from Sizewell B, the actual nuclear plant for which is less than one tenth of a square kilometre in area. The factor of 10,000 in energy efficiency of the use of land is not something that can be closed by tinkering with the renewable energy efficiency. Furthermore one can grow food or miscanthus or cover the land with solar panels, but not do more than one of these with the land at any one time.”

“In 2050 most of the 9bn population of the earth will live in megacities. Only nuclear energy and the burning of fossil fuels with complete carbon capture and storage produce energy numbers that add up to make global sense, but the latter technology (i.e. capture and storage) has not been demonstrated as effective and safe at anything like the scale needed. Everything else, and especially renewable energy technologies, is hubris as far as energising megacities is concerned.”

Donna Laframboise, a Canadian journalist who has written two books about the IPCC and its chairman[17], queries whether the IPCC produces as it claims “objective reports” that are “policy neutral”.  She notes that people “with documented links to activist organizations” have significant IPCC participation:-

• Michael Oppenheimer, who spent two decades on the payroll of the Environmental Defense Fund a US pressure group, is the lead for an AR5 chapter

• Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who has a long history of writing reports for both Greenpeace and WWF, leads another chapter

• Alistair Woodward, a New Zealand medical doctor, is in charge of a third. A 2009 paper he co-authored urges doctors to "Educate and encourage patients…in climate change action"

• Jennifer Morgan, who used to be the WWF's chief climate change spokesperson, was an AR5 review editor, as was Richard Moss who used to be employed as a WWF vice president

• Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman for the last 11 years, has written forewords for Greenpeace publications. He has accepted a "green crusader" award, and urges students to be "the torch bearers of the green campaign". In his home country of India, media outlets routinely describe Pachauri as an "environmentalist”

• Climate modeler Thomas Stocker headed Working Group 1.  He has a track record of promoting a long list of policy measures, which is excluded from the role of the IPCC.  Thus he considers air conditioning and heating in private residences should be set to a level in which we "feel some degree of discomfort"; we "need to use public transport, much more"; “air travel should be taxed heavily enough to discourage us from flying”, and “hotels should bill us separately for our energy use”

She concludes “The IPCC…is a child of one of the most politically riven bodies known to humanity, the United Nations…At a 2008 event celebrating the IPCC's 20th anniversary, chairman Pachauri told a group of IPCC insiders: "The UNFCCC is our main customer…An international treaty is a political instrument. This makes it impossible for any reasonable person to conclude that the IPCC is about science for science sake. This is science for politics’ sake.”

Paul Matthews is an applied mathematician with expertise in fluid dynamics, mathematical modelling and computer simulation. He has not worked directly in the field of climate science but has followed the field with interest for the last 5 years.  He notes misleading claims about the likelihood of human influence that have little detailed justification.  He also notes cherry picking and misleading presentation of data.  He summarises “unfortunately the IPCC report is marred by a misleading presentation, with some distortion of the facts and spin, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers. This is unscientific and casts doubt on the validity of the exercise and the credibility of the IPCC.”

John McLean’s doctorate in Australia is on climate issue.  He wrote a book “We have been conned – an independent review of the IPCC” which is a detailed analysis of the flaws in previous IPCC reports. He points out that in order to understand part of the agenda of the IPCC it is necessary to appreciate the history of its formation and that it “is focussed on the narrow issue of any human influences on climate and has no mandate to examine all possible causes (which means it cites only material relevant to its charter); it benefits through the massive government funding to research aligned with the IPCC view because such research produces a large number of peer-reviewed papers; attracts researchers who benefitted from the research funding above as Lead Authors and Coordinating Lead Authors; does not include sceptical authors (and yet scepticism is an essential part of science).

The IPCC “is not independent of government and politics because government representatives effectively dictate what will be said in the Summary for Policymakers… The IPCC is ineffective because of its narrow focus and this distorts its outlook into a form of political justification.”

He points out “The writing of an IPCC Assessment Review is made much easier if there is general agreement between the Lead Authors and Coordinating Lead Authors of a given chapter. One way to achieve this is to avoid involving any potential authors who might be sceptical of the claim of a significant human influence on temperature.”

Conor McMenamie is an inventor.  He opines that AR5 has an agenda to promote global climate change, and to support this by claiming the science is settled and rejecting other views.  He comments “The climate research institutions, upon whom we rely for an honest and accurate provision of information, are quickly becoming the least reliable authorities at providing that same information, since it is their ambition to adhere to the aspirations of the IPCC, despite their 100% failure record.”

Christopher Monkton, a well known sceptic, responded to the question of “How robust are the conclusions in AR5?” with an effective set of exhibits showing the discrepancy between various model predictions and aspects of global temperatures.  He linked the exhibits to 1) the failure of reliability of the models; 2) the failure to explain the temperature hiatus; and 3) the lack of credibility of the IPCC.  In response to the question of whether AR5 reflected the range of scientific views he pointed out that he had not been allowed to attend the initial scoping meeting for AR5 and the IPCC also tried to exclude Professor Paul Reiter, a world expert on epidemiology of malaria, who had disagreed with the IPCC line on the spread of malaria due to ACC.  He claimed “only one viewpoint is allowed”. 

Monkton considered “There is no economic case for climate action…it is time to do away with the IPCC…There is no need to cut CO2 emissions…the climate scare is over.”

Susan Morrow is a retired science teacher and an amateur meteorologist/climatologist.  She comments “The IPCC is 100% AGW lobbyists/scientists; there are other climate groups/ scientists that are 100% the opposite.  If the UK Met Office wants to lead world climate research it should not shun and demoralize alternative research, but employ some AGW sceptics on an equal basis.”

Philip Richen has a PhD in theoretical physics.  He concludes the IPCC “does not provide a balanced assessment of the scientific literature on natural variability…The report only partially addresses the reliability of climate models…The report does not sufficiently explain the reasons for the hiatus in global temperature.”

Fenton Robb comments “IPCC AR5 is unashamedly presented, not as the outcome of scientific observation, but as a compilation of the opinions of a close community of experts.  This is made abundantly clear in Section A Introduction paragraph 3.”  He considers that “Climatologists form a closely-knit peer group that shares an interest in promoting public alarm and provoking continued research.” 

The Scottish Climate and Energy Forum states that notwithstanding its claim to the contrary the IPCC does not know enough about climate science to model it accurately; it cannot determine the effects of climate change; and it provides no basis for government action.

Ian Strangeways was head of Applied Physics at the Institute of Hydrology and is now Director of TerraData Ltd, a consultancy in environmental monitoring and measurement.  He comments:-

• Models are still in the developmental, academic stage and are not proven tools
• The cause of the ‘pause’ in rising temperatures over the last 15 years is not known
• Mixing politics with science is not conducive to scientific objectivity”

He developed the latter point that [IPCC] “Being a ‘Governmental’ organisation makes it difficult to summarise and report scientific research objectively because of political pressures, interference, interpretation and spin. This is particularly so in the case of the Summary for Policymakers, which is all that most people read. The IPCC should, therefore, be replaced by a purely scientific panel free from any political involvement whatsoever. The IPCC is increasingly perceived by many as having a political agenda, undermining the excellent scientific work behind it.”

Richard Tol is a professor of economics at the University of Sussex and of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteet Amsterdam.  He does not regard the IPCC as an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge, commenting “The IPCC reports justify the existence of a large bureaucracy which, judging from the lack in progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vulnerability to climate change, seems primarily occupied with maintaining and expanding said bureaucracy.”  He also opines:-

              “The UK could be a leader in international climate policy if it would demonstrate that greenhouse gas emissions can be cut substantially without causing economic pain. Current UK climate policy shows the opposite: Climate policy can cause real hardship without making a dent in emissions.”

5.              ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENT

The British Warmist establishment took no notice of 1) the IPCC’s past promotion of pseudo science such as the “hockey stick” and “Himalayagate”; 2) its past baseless claims of increased hurricanes and the spread of malaria due to ACC; 3) the exposure in Climategate of the unethical practices of a coterie of climate scientists involved with the IPCC; 4) its association with the inconvenient inaccuracies promoted by Senator Al Gore; and 5) the various shortcomings cited in the previous two sections.  It continued living in its politically correct bubble of consensus settled science, claiming:-

• The conclusions of the AR5 Physical Science Basis Report are robust and there is little to question – there is significant dissent from this proposition

• Much, if not most, of the science is settled – not true

• AR5 reflects the views of most scientists - while this is true of British state scientists, it is not true of a number of free thinkers in foreign countries

• All avoided discussion of, or attempted to finesse the unreliability of models  Yet the July draft of the report stated clearly “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years” (Section D-1, Draft SPM-10).  This statement was removed from the final, published version of the SPM[18]

• All danced around the issue of whether AR5 has sufficiently explained the hiatus in the global surface temperature - i.e. like the IPCC they cannot explain it and are reduced to speculation that the heat was hiding in the deep ocean without explaining how it got there without the upper ocean warming

• AR5 confirms the need for urgent global action to address climate change - there is significant dissent from this proposition

• The IPCC is an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge and it has not been politicized.  Several sceptic and public policy submissions give cogent and fact based reasons for disagreeing

• AR5 supports the government’s effort to cut CO2 emissions – many disagree

In view of the close involvement of the various organisations and people in the IPCC none can be regarded as independent judges of AR5.  Furthermore they variously have political face, grant income, expenditure on bigger and faster computers, and reputations at stake.

The main scientific criticisms of AR5 are:-

• There is no substantive evidence to support the IPCC’s claimed linkage between the warming of the climate and increasing CO2[19] – the conclusions of the IPCC are not robust; there is scope to question many aspects of the science
• It conveys “an alarmist evaluation of the influence on the climate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that does not properly reflect scientific knowledge”, with distortions for political purposes

• The models do not reflect reality[20]; can be fudged with high climate sensitivity; and “are not getting any better”.  They are of little or no value in explaining the past, let alone predicting the future

• “The handling of uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific”

• There was a failure to assess climate sensitivity from observational estimates which are suggesting much lower figures than used in the IPCC models

• There was a failure to examine natural variability; the role of clouds and water vapour are not properly understood; the contribution of methane has not been properly analysed; the possible effect of the sun was effectively dismissed.  The science is definitely not settled

• “The issue of the 15 or so year pause in global temperature has not been properly addressed…”

• There are factual errors in the science

Public policy criticisms are that the IPCC process is not all that it is cracked up to be, notably:-

• It is not exclusively the work of independent scientists.  The chairman; the head of WG1, and some of the lead authors have strong green activist credentials.  “The IPCC authors, who have the last word on the material to be included, were selected because they were known to agree with the "consensus" and thus the final product is simply the consensus of those who agree with the consensus.  Were there any "sceptical" Lead Authors to provide the true range of views on climate change? No”

• “The growing implications of the complexity of the climate change problem and its potential solutions are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change” - there are many unknowns in climate science

• Apart from Britain, where climate science is dominated by politically correct state scientists, there is no sound basis for claims of an overwhelming international consensus

• It uses evasive and obfuscatory wording to cover over issues which are embarrassing.  Thus it had this to say about climate model performance:-

“Climate models have improved since the [Fourth Assessment Reportpublished in 2007]. Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).”

     Followed immediately by this:-

“The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012).”

• There is general agreement among the commentators that the SPM is a politically contrived document. The IPCC has failed to ensure any compliance with its fundamental principle of requiring a “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” process

• Several propose that the IPCC is past its sell by date, and some argue there is a need for a genuinely independent assessment of the realities of climate science
• “AR5 conclusions fatally weaken the economic case for policy action. Both the level of, and confidence in, temperature projections are sharply reduced”

• The proposal to rely on renewables is impracticable given 1) their high costs and 2) their profligate use of land.  They will not meet the future needs of a highly urbanized world of 9bn people

• The British attempts at decarbonisation are both ineffectual, expensive, illusory tokenism that will not nothing to save the planet

January 2014