Simply Bad Science Found In IPCC Reportage

Some basic facts in the Summary for Policy Makers which have eluded mainstream press, without the window-dressing of scientism. Let's save the planet - by researching it properly!

SPM acknowledges fifteen year warming lack

In spite of predictions of inevitable increase and a 7% rise in CO2 atmospheric concentration. The notion of a Type error for this extended duration is severely improbable (especially given how it was swept under the rug by the IPCC until the last minute) and could be commented upon if a null hypothesis were adequately entertained by their research.

Alternative 'deep ocean' explanation contains crucial flaw

Omitted science: heat must travel via the shallow ocean to reach the deep.

Great, except the shallow ocean hasn't warmed since 2003.

The 73 models compiled diverge in their certainty

Pictured: huge variance from its sources.

Simply put, the branches shouldn't be extending out.

UN-IPCC prediction v What really happened

Someone needs to be fired.

34 years of research later and the model is worse

The 'Charney' climate report (1979) posits the same limits as AR4 (2007), a rise of 2-4.5C for every doubling of carbon dioxide and AR5 (2013) increases the range predicted to 1.5-4.5C. The range should be getting smaller as the models become more effective at prediction.

IPCC official line: "Low confidence" predicting tropical cyclones and extreme drought events

You have one job, guys.

You've had how many years?

How many billions?

Is post-1950 warming really "unprecedented"?

Not according to the Hadley (UK) records, which considered it as similar to the 1910-1940 level.

SPM implicates carbon monoxide (CO)

Slight problem: Carbon monoxide isn't a greenhouse gas.

Claims to include all important science relevant to climate

Unless you count solar magnetic activity.

Goalposts of year are moved

Warming 'trend' from 1880 to 2012.

After the Little Ice Age.

Compressing the line of the cooling between 1940-1975, when the predominant climate theory was Global Cooling.

Fails to mention natural weather events contributing to warming, such as Super El Nino in 1998.

'Global' troposphere warming

except the tropical one aka the 'missing hotspot'.

Sea levels used to be much higher

but they don't count because reasons.

Five metres minimum - unimportant to any considerations whatsoever, apparently.

NIPCC (nongovernmental) conclusions missing from mass media

Apolitical treatment of science? Who wants that?

As its own SPM concludes;

"1. We conclude that neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late 20th century surface warming (1979 to 2000) lies outside normal natural variability, nor is it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth's history. Furthermore, solar forcing of temperature change is more important than currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2-degree C rise in temperature (from whatever cause) would be globally harmful.

2. We conclude that no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emission. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events. An increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.

3. We conclude that the current generation of global climate models is unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead -- let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public-policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value."

Before someone goes there

Polar bears can swim.

They're as dangerous as tigers.

They're not going extinct anytime soon (estimates say we've got a century before it's a risk).

Photojournalism is deliberately misleading

It's easy to select photographs of the Arctic during the time of year it melts and magically forget to take ones when it freezes back later. There is both a melting season and a freezing season for the clusters of ice which make up the whole.

Or I guess Mars has an anthropocentric global warming problem too?