WILL SOMEONE PLEASE PUT THE IPCC OUT OF ITS CORRUPT MISERY?

"Who you gonna believe?  Us, or your lying eyes?"

The UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in effect issued that challenge with its 5th Assessment Report Monday (9/30).

A Summary for Policymakers was formally issued last Friday (9/27).  But release of the report itself was delayed because revisions needed to be made to make the report proper comport with the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC said.

Since the report is written by scientists, while the summary is written by political representatives of UN member nations, this would seem to be bass-ackwards.  In a rational world, the summary should be adjusted to reflect the current thinking of scientists.  What scientists think to be scientific truth shouldn’t be massaged to fit the needs, desires, or convenience of politicians.

News stories about the IPCC report were based on the Summary for Policymakers.  The main reason for the delay in issuance of the report, I suspect, is so no journalist would notice the more extravagant claims by the politicos are heavily caveated by the scientists in the report proper.

A draft summary of the report leaked to journalists a few weeks ago more accurately reflected the thinking of the scientists on the panel, but gave the politicos heartburn, said James Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

That’s because the draft summary acknowledged there has been a "pause" of 15 to 17 years in warming, which the computer models upon which the IPCC relies didn’t predict.

"The political representatives expressed special concern regarding IPCC’s acknowledgement that it could not explain the ongoing flat temperatures, and they urged IPCC to change its findings," Mr. Taylor said.

Politicians in Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States have spent hundreds of billions of their taxpayers’ dollars, and inflicted considerable hardships on their peoples on the basis of the dire predictions in earlier IPCC reports.  If word got out this was all for naught, there could be repercussions at the polls.

So the IPCC issued its "who you gonna believe, us, or your lying eyes" challenge. 

"I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase)," IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri told the BBC Sept. 23rd.  (A former railroad porter in India, Pachauri is one of the most corrupt people on the planet, as described in the exposé Into the Dustbin.)

That statement will not enhance Mr. Pachauri’s already battered credibility.  In an interview in February with Graham Lloyd of The Australian newspaper, had acknowledged a 17-year "pause."  IPCC lead author Hans von Storch of the Meteorologic Institute at the University of Hamburg acknowledged the pause — and the inaccuracy of the IPCC computer models — in an interview in June with the magazine Der Spiegel.

"The data shows clearly that the observations are running cooler than the out-of-sample predictions of the IPCC from each of its past 4 reports," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

In August, temperatures in the lower troposphere (where warming is most likely to occur) were 0.16 degrees Celsius (0.29 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than they had been in 1979, according to satellite measurements.  Since 2011, global temperatures have declined by 0.34 degrees C (0.61 degrees F).

The Summary for Policymakers "reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century," said Roy Spencer, who with John Christy monitors satellite temperature measurements for the University of Alabama-Huntsville.

When it became clear the sky was not in fact falling, Chicken Little lost her credibility, and became an object of ridicule.  The same fate is befalling those who — despite what is now massive evidence to the contrary — continue to claim the sky is warming.

"The latest IPCC report has truly sunk to the level of hilarious incoherence," said Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at MIT.  "They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

The IPCC is in "full damage control mode" because even friendly journalists have noticed the differences between real world measurements and what the IPCC predicted in 2007 report, Mr. Taylor said.

Because it "oversimplified and hyper-politicized" climate change, "we need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible," said Dr. Judith Curry, chair of Earth and Atmospheric Scientists at Georgia Tech.

Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.