IPCC hides lies beneath science


The IPCC deceives us

Barry Brill reveals a serial deception by the IPCC we need to wake up to. Why? Because the alarm peddled by this UN body relies on a simple, easily confirmed falsehood. The IPCC claims we should adhere to a 30-year observation period it has never itself respected. It implies that we should believe the IPCC that it’s been warming and disbelieve the temperature data that it hasn’t been warming. The IPCC’s parent body, the WMO, says that a far shorter period is quite all right (why won’t they correct the IPCC?). We cannot trust the IPCC, so we must take decisions regarding the expected future climate completely out of their insincere, incompetent hands.

Under pressure at a media conference following release of its Summary for Policymakers, AR5 WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker is reported to have said that “climate trends should not be considered for periods less than 30 years.”

Some have seen this as the beginning of an IPCC ploy to continue ignoring the 16-year-old temperature standstill for many years into the future. But even the IPCC must know that any such red herring is dead in the water:

1. When James Hansen launched the global warming scare in 1988, there had been no statistically significant warming over the previous 30 years and the warming trend during 1977-87 was 0.0°C. The IPCC was also established that year.


2. At the time of the first IPCC report in 1991 (FAR), the warming trend was barely 11 years old.


3. Most significantly, the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 adopted the UNFCCC treaty on the basis of a 30-year cooling trend followed by only 12 years of warming. That treaty dogmatically redefined “climate change” as being anthropogenic and eventually committed over 190 countries to combat “dangerous” warming.

4. The latest WG1 report bases its assessment of sea level rise and ocean heat content on the trend in satellite readings which have been available for only 19 years, coupled with ARGO reports for a period less than a decade. There is no apology for the short periods.

5. In 2007, the AR4 made much of the fact that the warming trend over the previous 15 years exceeded 0.2°C/decade. In 2013, the AR5 plays down the fact that there is no significant warming at all during the previous 15 years. (But AR5 cites 0.05°C/decade without mentioning that this figure is ±0.14°C).

6. If the IPCC wants to focus on 30-year trends, why did it make no comment on the fact that the current 30-year trend has fallen to 0.174°C/decade from the 0.182°C/decade trend that was the (1992-2006) backdrop to the AR4? Particularly, as the intervening 6-year period has been characterised by record increases in CO2 emissions.

7. Dr Stocker’s criticism of short-term trends as being influenced by start and end dates, ignores that long-term trends are similar. He picked a 60-year period (1951-2010) to produce a 0.12°C/decade trend, when a 70-year or 80-year period would have shown a much-reduced trend of 0.07°C.

8. WG1 scientists found it appropriate to include a statement in the AR5 SPM that

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”

Three months later, this crucial sentence was disappeared by a secret conclave of politicians/bureaucrats — not by scientists.

9. Dr Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), told journalist David Rose that his question about the standstill was “ill-posed”. The WMO issues manuals on best practice for climatology and regards itself as the premier authority on measuring temperature trends. Here is what its manual WMO GUIDE TO CLIMATOLOGICAL PRACTICES (3RD EDTN) has to say about 30-year periods:

Chapter 4.8.1 Period of calculation“A number of studies have found that 30 years is not generally the optimal averaging period for normals used for prediction. The optimal period for temperatures is often substantially shorter than 30 years, but the optimal period for precipitation is often subtantially greater than 30 years.”And (at page 102):“The optimal length of record for predictive use of normals varies with element, geography, and secular trend. In general, the most recent 5‑ to 10‑year period of record has as much predictive value as a 30‑year record.”

Prior to release of the SPM, Bloomberg reported that some countries (notably Germany) wanted to wholly ignore the temperature standstill and pretend that the 20-year-old paradigm was still intact.

Few expected that would happen, predicting a sharply-reduced best estimate of sensitivity and rueful acknowledgment that natural factors had been under-estimated. The fact that days of debate culminated in this absurd canard about 30-year trends is a powerful indicator of just how desperate the climate establishment has now become.

Visits: 75

5 Thoughts on “IPCC hides lies beneath science

  1. Alexander K on 29/10/2013 at 8:42 am said:

    The ‘Climate Establishment’ appears, on any measure, to be (and always has been), a criminal cartel who have always been willing to promote any untruth in the furtherance of their agenda, which seems to be to push the Western economies into failure and destitution.
    The attempted demonisation of Chris de Freitas is but one example among many.

  2. To summarise: If we observe 12 years of warming trend, humans are to blame and must be taxed heavily. If we observe cooling, it must be for at least 30 years to be of any significance and anyway, it is due to natural variance or sneaky heat deep-diving, so please keep sending your money.

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 29/10/2013 at 9:45 am said:

    “Particularly, as the intervening 6-year period has been characterised by record increases in CO2 emissions.”

    Yes. Particularly.

    “He picked a 60-year period (1951-2010)…..”

    That’s the IPCC’s anthro attribution time-frame too. Except only 20 years (2 decades, 1980 – 2000) of that 60 years (6 decades) exhibited any warming as evidenced by IPCC AR5 SPM Figure 1(a) (see below). Stocker inadvertently throws out that attribution to only 20 years of warming with “climate trends should not be considered for periods less than 30 years”.

    The IPCC cannot point to 30 years of (supposedly) anthropogenic warming using Stocker’s criteria.

    AR5 SPM Figure 1(a):


  4. Australis on 29/10/2013 at 2:59 pm said:

    Surely, the IPCC can’t expect the media/politicians to swallow another 15 years of cooling or standstill while still expecting a temperature apocalypse.

    I was surprised at the SPM’s supreme confidence in the imminent expiry of “the hiatus”. Most of their RCP trajectories have warming back to full speed by about 2015.

    They expect solar activity to pick up, think an El Nino is overdue, and anticipate a rapid reduction of aerosols in Asia.

    Unless something changes, on 1 October 2015, it will be 20 years since any significant global warming has been recorded. It has already passed the 17-year mark that the CMIP5 ensemble cannot simulate – according to Santer et al.

    If this temperature standstill – or cooling – continues for another two years, the game must surely be over! The clock is ticking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation