Scientists Already Disputing UN’s Soon-To-Be-Released Global Warming Report

September 26, 2013 - 11:57 AM

 

Pat Michaels

Patrick J. Michaels, director of the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science (Cato Institute)

(CNSNews.com) -- The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to be released in Stockholm on Friday.

But a draft of the report has been leaked to the media, and some climate scientists are already scoffing at its finding that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” and that “globally, CO2 is the strongest driver of climate change.”

Patrick Michaels, former climate professor at the University of Virginia and current director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science, called the new report a “charade,” adding that it is already “obsolete.”

Contrary to the draft report’s conclusions, Michaels cited “recent scientific findings” showing “that [the] rate of sea level rise since 1993 is little different than the long-term (20th century) rate of sea level rise once natural variability and non-climactic influences are accounted for.”

The IPCC, which is also “ignoring a whole suite of new scientific experiments on temperature and CO2,  is in an absolute pickle,” Michaels told CNSNews. “It’s behaving like a treed cat, which is supposed to close its eyes and run down the tree. What they are doing is climbing even higher and yelling even more loudly.

“The IPCC has three choices,” Michaels continued. “It can round-file the entire 3,000-page report; publish the report as it stands, but put a gigantic black-label disclaimer on page one stating that a large amount of recent research suggests that the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 has been overestimated by around 40 percent; or simply act like nothing has happened and mislead global leaders.

“They can’t fix the report, so they will choose Door # 3,” Michaels predicted. “Then their credibility is gone. Even my green friends are predicting the end of the IPCC as we know it.”

Steve McIntyre, the Canadian mathematician who helped uncover the error in Michael Mann’s  famous “hockey stick” graph that was published in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001, agrees that the latest report is seriously flawed.

AR5 is “compromised by gatekeeping by fellow-traveler journal editors, who have routinely rejected skeptic articles on the discrepancy between models and observations or pointing out the weaknesses of articles now relied upon by the IPCC.

“Despite exposure of these practices in Climategate, little has changed,” McIntyre noted. “As it is, IPCC is surely in a well-earned quandary.”

“Under pressure, the IPCC now acknowledges the pause [in global warming] and admits that climate models failed to predict it,” Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department wrote in her Climate Etc. blog.  But “the IPCC has failed to convincingly explain the pause in terms of external radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar or volcanic forcing; this leaves natural internal variability as the predominant candidate to explain the pause,” she writes.

“If the IPCC attributes the pause to natural internal variability, then this begs the question as to what extent the warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural internal variability.  Not to mention raising questions about the confidence that we should place in the IPCC’s projections of future climate change.”

This is not the first time claims made by the IPCC, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007, have come under fire.

IPCC 2007 Climate Change Report

(IPCC)

The IPCC’s widely cited Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released in 2007 predicted that global warming would cause African crop yields to plummet 50 percent by 2020, forcing millions of Africans to starve if the developed nations did not give up their energy-intensive lifestyles.

The same report also claimed that Himalayan glaciers were in danger of melting by 2035.

Both assertions were later debunked.