You’ve been reading all week in the MSM about the doomsday predictions in the latest IPCC report.
You’ve quaked at headlines like:
- “Climate change harms food crops, says IPCC” (Financial Times)
- “Climate signals growing louder” (New York Times)
- “Climate change is felt globally and risks are rising, UN panel says” (LA Times)
- “Climate inaction catastrophic – US” (BBC)
- “Giant Killer Cockroaches And Mutant Scorpions Will Stalk The Earth And Kill All The Baby Polar Bears” (Breitbart London)
And what you may be wondering is: how much of this stuff should I take seriously?
The simple answer is: zilch, nada, none of it.
It comes down to this. The latest IPCC report by Working Group II concerns not the scientific evidence for man-made climate change (which was dealt with, rather badly, by Working Group I in September last year) but rather the impacts of that climate change. But in order to make its predictions about the impacts of climate change, Working Group II is entirely dependent on the quality of the science of Working Group I.
Working Group I, remember, was supposed to tell us the scientific case for man-made global warming. If our emissions aren’t driving the climate towards a catastrophe, then we don’t need to analyze what happens during the catastrophe we probably won’t get. This applies equally to War, Pestilence, Famine, Drought, Floods, Storms, and Shrinking Fish (which, keep in mind, could have led to the ultimate disaster: shrinking fish and chips).
To cut a long story short, the 95% certainty of Working Group I boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013) . Even under the most generous interpretation, models are proven failures, 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). They get cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012). They don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008). They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010, Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.
This is not sophistry on Jo Nova’s part. She is absolutely correct. The latest IPCC report is bunk because the report on which it is based is a crock.
Feeling better now?