Humans caused 84% of US wildfires from 1992 to 2012

Although climate change has been blamed for an increase of wildfires in the United States, a new paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that 84% of fires were ignited by humans and this extended the fire season by a factor of three.

Here is the paper abstract:

The economic and ecological costs of wildfire in the United States have risen substantially in recent decades. Although climate change has likely enabled a portion of the increase in wildfire activity, the direct role of people in increasing wildfire activity has been largely overlooked. We evaluate over 1.5 million government records of wildfires that had to be extinguished or managed by state or federal agencies from 1992 to 2012, and examined geographic and seasonal extents of human-ignited wildfires relative to lightning ignited wildfires. Humans have vastly expanded the spatial and seasonal “fire niche” in the coterminous United States, accounting for 84% of all wildfires and 44% of total area burned. During the 21-y time period, the human-caused fire season was three times longer than the lightning-caused fire season and added an average of 40,000 wildfires per year across the United States. Human-started wildfires disproportionally occurred where fuel moisture was higher than lightning-started fires, thereby helping expand the geographic and seasonal niche of wildfire. Human-started wildfires were dominant (>80% of ignitions) in over 5.1 million km2 , the vast majority of the United States, whereas lightning-started fires were dominant in only 0.7 million km2, primarily in sparsely populated areas of the mountainous western United States. Ignitions caused by human activities are a substantial driver of overall fire risk to ecosystems and economies. Actions to raise awareness and increase management in regions prone to human-started wildfires should be a focus of United States policy to reduce fire risk and associated hazards.

Read the full paper here:

Climate models for the layman

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a British think tank, has just published an excellent review of climate models, their problems and uncertainties, all of which show that they are inadequate for policy formulation. The paper is written by Dr. Judith Curry, the author of over 180 scientific papers on weather and climate. She recently retired from the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she held the positions of Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. She is currently President of Climate Forecast Applications Network.

You can read the 30-page paper here:

Here is the executive summary:

There is considerable debate over the fidelity and utility of global climate models (GCMs). This debate occurs within the community of climate scientists, who disagree about the amount of weight to give to climate models relative to observational analyses. GCM outputs are also used by economists, regulatory agencies and policy makers, so GCMs have received considerable scrutiny from a broader community of scientists, engineers, software experts, and philosophers of science. This report attempts to describe the debate surrounding GCMs to an educated but nontechnical audience.

Key summary points

• GCMs have not been subject to the rigorous verification and validation that is the norm for engineering and regulatory science.

• There are valid concerns about a fundamental lack of predictability in the complex nonlinear climate system.

• There are numerous arguments supporting the conclusion that climate models are not fit for the purpose of identifying with high confidence the proportion of the 20th century warming that was human-caused as opposed to natural.

• There is growing evidence that climate models predict too much warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

• The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century climate will actually evolve.

Climate models are useful tools for conducting scientific research to understand the climate system. However, the above points support the conclusion that current GCMs are not fit for the purpose of attributing the causes of 20th century warming or for predicting global or regional climate change on timescales of decades to centuries, with any high level of confidence. By extension, GCMs are not fit for the purpose of justifying political policies to fundamentally alter world social, economic and energy systems. It is this application of climate model results that fuels the vociferousness of the debate surrounding climate models.

New study shows Antarctic sea ice is the same as it was 100 years ago

The following is from an article in the London Telegraph by Science Editor Sarah Knapton.

The study was based on the ice observations recorded in the logbooks from 11 voyages between 1897 and 1917, including three expeditions led by Captain Scott, two by Shackleton, as well as sea-ice records from Belgian, German and French missions.

Antarctic sea ice had barely changed from where it was 100 years ago, scientists have discovered, after poring over the logbooks of great polar explorers such as Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton.

Experts were concerned that ice at the South Pole had declined significantly since the 1950s, which they feared was driven by man-made climate change.

But new analysis suggests that conditions are now virtually identical to when the Terra Nova and Endurance sailed to the continent in the early 1900s, indicating that declines are part of a natural cycle and not the result of global warming.

“We know that sea ice in the Antarctic has increased slightly over the past 30 years, since satellite observations began. Scientists have been grappling to understand this trend in the context of global warming, but these new findings suggest it may not be anything new.

Read full article

Read press release from the European Geosciences Union

Study: Forest Fires in Sierra Nevada Driven by Past Land Use not Climate Change

Researchers from the University of Arizona and Penn State studied fire regimes in the Sierra Nevada Mountain of California for the period 1600 to 2015 and found that land use changes, not climate, were the principal controlling factors.

This result was apparently a surprise to the researchers since they set out to correlate climate with the fires.

“Initially, we did work to see if we could develop long-lead forecasts for fire in the area — six to 18 months in the future — using climate patterns such as El Niño,” said Alan H. Taylor, professor of geography, Penn State. “This would be a significant help because we could place resources in the west if forecasts indicated it would be dry and the southeast would be wet. However, the climate relationships with fire did not consistently track.”

“We were expecting to find climatic drivers,” said lead co-author Valerie Trouet, a UA associate professor of dendrochronology. “We didn’t find them.”

The researchers used tree ring data from 29 sites, historical documents, and 20th Century records of areas burned.

From the UofA press release:

For the years 1600 to 2015, the team found four periods, each lasting at least 55 years, where the frequency and extent of forest fires clearly differed from the time period before or after. The team found the fire regimes corresponded to different types of human occupation and use of the land: the pre-settlement period to the Spanish colonial period; the colonial period to the California Gold Rush; the Gold Rush to the Smokey Bear/fire suppression period; and the Smokey Bear/fire suppression era to present. Finding that fire activity and human land use are closely linked means people can affect the severity and frequency of future forest fires through managing the fuel buildup and other land management practices — even in the face of rising temperatures from climate change.

From the Penn State press release:

Early fires, because they were more frequent, with less fuel build-up, were “good” fires. They burned through the forest, consumed understory fuels and left the majority of trees unharmed. The Native American mosaic of burned and unburned areas prevented fires from continuously spreading.

From 1776 to 1865 the second fire regime, characterized by Spanish colonialism and the depopulation of Native Americans in the area, shows more land burned. European settlers brought diseases against which Native Americans had no immunity and the population suffered. The Spanish built a string of missions in California beginning in 1769 and relocated remaining Native Americans to the mission areas. In 1793, there was a ban on burning to preserve forage, disrupting the pre-colonial Native American burning practices. The incidence of fires became more sensitive to drought and the fire regime changed, creating the time when fires were largest and most closely coupled with climate.

The third fire period is from 1866 to 1903 and was initiated by the California gold rush, when thousands of people poured into the area. Settlement by large numbers of new immigrants began to break up the forest fuel and the creation of large herds of animals, especially sheep, removed large amounts of understory and changed the fire regime.

The fourth fire period began in 1904 and is linked to the federal government’s policy of fire suppression on government lands. The reason pre-colonial and Spanish colonial fire levels were so much higher than today is that the current fire regime is one of suppressions with an extremely low incidence of fires compared to the past. However, suppression over the last century has allowed fuel to build up on the forest floor and opened the door for “bad” fires that destroy the forest canopy and burn large areas of land.

(UofA press release, Penn State press release, paper abstract )

This finding contradicts an alarmist story printed in the Arizona Daily Star this past October (see third reference below).


See also:

Wildfires and Warming – Relationship not so clear
Claim: “Worsening Wildfires Linked to Temp Rise

Media hype about forest fires and global warming
Mega-fires in Southwest due to forest mismanagement

Will Trump rein in regulation?

Have we just witnessed a second American revolution; one that repudiates the policies of the political establishment of both Republicans and Democrats? We had a hint of this when Trump beat out establishment Republicans in the primary.

Trump will have much to deal with. In this article I will concentrate on the EPA, an agency whose regulations have trampled private property rights, and killed much inexpensive electricity generation.

What if, in his inaugural address, Trump were to issue an executive order that says something like “no federal agency shall regulate carbon dioxide emissions from burning of fossil fuels and all existing regulations to that effect are null and void?” Even the EPA admits that the possible effect on climate of its “Clean Power Plan” is prevention of just 0.03°C by the year 2100. That would be a great positive step in quelling the climate madness. It would also boost our economy. EPA regulations on particulate matter have no basis in science (see references below).

The EPA itself could be phased out and replaced by the environmental agencies of each state.

The EPA’s “Waters of the United States” rule (WOTUS, see here and here) impacts private property rights because the rule has become so invasive that it regulates every puddle and rill that may occur on or pass through a property.

In addition to the above:

The U.S. should withdrawal from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from the Paris climate agreement and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC). These agencies and agreements suck money and provide no benefit. In the thousands of pages from reports by the IPCC, they have never produced any physical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions play a significant role in controlling global temperature.

The U.S. should also terminate all federal government subsidies for climate change research and for “renewable” energy. Let the solar and wind turbine companies test the demand for their product on the free market without any artificial markets produced by mandates and subsidies.

Endangered species listings based on projected climate change should be rescinded. In fact, the Endangered Species act should be amended or replaced with something that is more science-based and provides a positive incentive for conservation.

I hope Trump can “drain the swamp” and make the government serve the people once again.


See also:

EPA Clean Power Plan is Junk Science

EPA’s own human experiments debunk health claims

EPA claims on dangers of particulate matter are false

EPA Clean Power Plan is Junk Science

Replace the Environmental Protection Agency

EPA targets wrong cause of haze in Grand Canyon

The Flaws in the Endangered Species Act



Climate Madness 3

Scanning the news, we find both amusing and politically ominous stories about global warming. Climate alarmists may be painting themselves into a corner: Australian Attorney General George Brandis has stirred the climate pot down under, by asking a simple yet devastating question. “If the science is settled, why do we need research scientists to continue inquiring into the settled science?” “Wouldn’t it be a much more useful allocation of taxpayers’ money and research capacity …to allocate its resources to an area where the science isn’t settled?” (Source)

Brandis is right: this whole global warming scam is diverting taxpayer dollars from useful research and projects. It is a colossal waste.

Here are some global warming stories that caught my eye.

Proposals and claims from academia where research grants and salaries may depend upon there being a climate crisis:

This month’s winner for craziest proposal:

Ecosystem Translocation: The latest Climate Engineering Brainstorm

Stephanie Boyer, senior lecturer at UNITEC Institute of Technology (New Zealand) is worried that plants and animals can’t move fast enough to survive climate change. His solution: give nature a helping hand, by digging up entire ecosystems, and moving them hundreds of miles, to maintain optimum climatic conditions. Read more

Claim: Climate Change will Stop Women from Wanting Sex

Women don’t like to sweat while having sex, so they are less likely to have sex in warm weather, according to the latest climate health claim. While it is very difficult to isolate and measure the impact of temperature on our sexual patterns, an American academic said this connection could become increasingly important. Alan Barreca, an associate professor at Tulane University in New Orleans, is one of three economists who studied almost 80 years of weather and birth data between 1931 and 2010, and found a strong link between weather and birth rates. Read more

(If that claim is true why are the highest birthrates in the world in the tropics?)

Politics and National Security:

Climate Change Politics Threaten National Security

By Leigh Thompson

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan makes carbon reduction, not reliability, price, or safety the priority of the electric grid. But, forced closure of coal-fired power plants, making up nearly 40 percent of the nation’s electric generation, will undermine the stability of the entire electric grid and present a significant threat to our national security. Read more

Former Army General Completely Dismantles Claim Global Warming Causes War

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

Former U.S. Army Gen. Robert Scales took on claims by the Obama administration that global warming is America’s biggest national security threat and that rising temperatures will cause more violent conflict to break out around the world. “The administration’s new-found passion to connect climate change to war is an example of faulty theories that rely for relevance on politically-correct imaginings rather than established historical precedent,” Scales told senators during a hearing on environmental policy. “The point is that in today’s wars, politically-correct theories inserted into a battle plan might well extend war needlessly and get soldiers killed.” Read more

Costs of Paris Agreement

According to a new Heritage Foundation study by Kevin Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris, and David Kreutzer, implementing the Paris climate agreement would result in $2.5 trillion in lost GDP by 2035. Possible impact on climate: using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures. In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100. Read study

Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare

From former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. So what is the goal of environmental policy? “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

Read more from Investors Business Daily.


Judge Orders U.S. to Address Climate Threat to Wolverines


SALMON, Idaho — A federal judge rejected a decision by U.S. wildlife managers to deny wolverines Endangered Species Act protection, ruling the government erred in discounting the threat posed by climate change to the weasel-like predator of the Northern Rockies.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2013 proposed an endangered species listing for the estimated 300 wolverines believed to still inhabit the Lower 48 states, most of them in the snowy peaks of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. The Interior Department agency said then that human-caused global warming was lessening mountain snows needed by wolverines for building dens and storing food. But the Fish and Wildlife Service abruptly reversed itself in 2014, deciding against special protections for wolverines on grounds that it lacked sufficient evidence that climate change was harming the animals.

Read more This one can set a dangerous precedent if it proceeds.

Runner-up for craziest scheme:

US Senate Considering Albedo Modification Geoengineering Proposal

The US Senate is considering funding for albedo modification geoengineering experiments – pumping particles or aerosols into the stratosphere, to reflect sunlight back into space, and counter the alleged impact of elevated CO2 levels on global climate. In essence, this proposal would put more pollution into the atmosphere . It is difficult to imagine a more ridiculous waste of taxpayer’s money. The US spends taxpayer’s money regulating coal plants, forcing any coal plants which survive Obama’s war on energy, to fit expensive scrubbers, to remove particulates from their emissions. (Source)

Free Speech:

Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming Skepticism

by Eric Worrall

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just been subpoenaed, as part of Al Gore’s Climate Witch hunt. This is a move which so blatantly reeks of McCarthyite abuse of power, even some proponents of climate action are horrified at the attack on freedom which this subpoena represents.

CEI has long been a champion of sound climate change policy, and opposed previous attempts to use McCarthy-style tactics by officials aiming to limit discussions between nonprofit policy groups and the private sector regarding federal policies. CEI has not broken any laws, they just disagree with official policy and are being punished for that disagreement.

You don’t have to be a climate skeptic, to recognize that an attack on freedom of speech, in whatever guise, is an attack on everything which America stands for.

More than anything, this authoritarian, un-American attempt to silence dissent betrays the weakness of those perpetrating this attack on the CEI. In a Republic, people who have a compelling case to offer, don’t have to intimidate their political opponents into silence, to win the argument. Read more


Criticizing the mainstream is highly risky: Young scientists forced to conform to established models to avoid putting careers at risk

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt

Young university researchers are quasi forced to submit themselves to the trends of the day, i.e. the overriding mainstream in any particular scientific field:

The principle is ultimately always the same: Foremost one has to be an often published and often cited figure in his/her scientific field in order to be able to contribute to the ranking of a university. But how does one often publish or become often cited in respected journals of his own field? The most important principles are: Adaptation to the mainstream and do not question any established theories or models. All submitted articles first must go through a peer-review process where champions of the scientific discipline evaluate it. Under these circumstances a young researcher has no option but to go along with the mainstream theories represented in the top journals and to use the empirical processes that are currently in trend. Only in this way does he/she have any chance of having enough publications to make him/herself eligible to be a professor. Through this very kind of pressure to conform applied by top journals is science obstructed rather than promoted. (source)

More junk science:

An Overheated Climate Alarm

by Bjorn Lomborg

The Obama administration released a new report this week that paints a stark picture of how climate change will affect human health. Higher temperatures, we’re told, will be deadly—killing “thousands to tens of thousands” of Americans. The report is subtitled “A Scientific Assessment,” presumably to underscore its reliability. But the report reads as a political sledgehammer that hypes the bad and skips over the good. It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat. (Read more from WSJ)


See also:

Climate madness 2

Global Warming – The Madness of our Age

The Bankruptcy of Climate Science

2015 was rainiest year at my house

Even though the southwest is experiencing drought conditions, 2015 was the rainiest year in the last nine years during which I recorded rainfall at my house.

Since mid-2007, I have been measuring and reporting daily rainfall at my house on the west side of Tucson, Arizona. This is part of the program run by SAHRA, “Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas.”

Tucson has two rainy seasons: a winter season which may or may not have much rain, and the summer monsoon which gives us the majority of rainfall in the region. During the winter, our weather comes from the west and storms may be sucked dry as they pass over the Sierra Nevada of California. During the summer, our weather comes from the southeast with winds bearing moisture sucked out of the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of California.

See Anatomy of a Thunderstorm and The North American Monsoon

During the summer monsoon, desert heat and orographic uplift from mountain ranges turn that moist air into thunderstorms. In Tucson, much of the rain occurs on the east side of town because of the air flow direction and orographic uplift over the Catalina Mountains. We who live on the west side of town get what is left over.

Here are the numbers.

In 2015, I recorded 14.32 inches of rain. The next rainiest year was 2008 with 12.09 inches. The dryest year was 2013 with 7.95 inches. The graphs below from RainLong show how rain occurred during the year (there are two graphs because Rainlog can plot only five years at a time).

MyRain 2008-2010


Here is the total rainfall recorded in inches since 2008:
2008: 12.09
2009: 10.00
2010: 11.56
2011: 10.83
2012: 10.85
2013: 7.95
2014: 11.36
2015: 14.32

As I write this on January 2, 2016, El Nino driven rain is forecast for every day next week.


EPA’s Clean Power Plan would disproportionally hurt the poor

According to a study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” would have “serious economic, employment, and energy market impacts at the national level and for all states, and that the impacts on low income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe.”

The report is entitled “Potential Impact of Proposed EPA Regulations On Low Income Groups and Minorities.” You can read the full report here (127 pages).

The report abstract reads as follows:

“EPA is proposing new regulations, including guidelines to reduce CO2 emissions from existing fossil-fueled power plants. These regulations would have serious economic, employment, and energy impacts at the national level and for all states, and the impacts on low-income groups, Blacks, and Hispanics would be especially severe. The EPA rules would: 1) Significantly reduce U.S. GDP every year over the next two decades – over $2.3 trillion; 2) Destroy millions of jobs; 3) More than double the cost of power and natural gas to over $1 trillion; 4) Require the average family to pay over $1,225 more for power and gas in 2030 than in 2012.”

“The EPA regulations will increase Hispanic poverty by more than 26% and Black poverty by more than 23%. The energy burdens for Blacks and Hispanics will increase and large numbers of both groups will be forced into energy poverty and Black and Hispanic household incomes will decline by increasing amounts each year. There would be increasing job losses: By 2035, cumulative job losses for Blacks will total about 7 million and for Hispanics will total 12 million. Most job losses would occur in the states in which Blacks and Hispanics are most heavily concentrated.”

The report provides analysis of impact nationally and by state.

In concluding remarks (page 103) the report warns:

“The EPA regulations will significantly increase the energy burdens for Blacks and Hispanics and increase the numbers of Blacks and Hispanics suffering from “energy poverty.” The regulations will greatly increase energy prices and set off repercussions throughout the economy, but nowhere do high prices bring consequences as swiftly and harshly as in low-income and minority households. For the tens of millions of low income households, the higher energy prices will intensify the difficulty of meeting the costs of basic human needs, while increasing energy burdens that are already excessive. At the same time, the EPA regulations will threaten low-income access to vital energy and utility services, thereby endangering health and safety while creating additional barriers to meaningful low-income participation in the economy. While home energy costs average about four percent per year in middle class households, they can reach a staggering 70 percent of monthly income for low-income families.”

The government’s campaign to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has no basis in science or economics; it is essentially a method for obtaining power and making citizens more dependent on government. As Dr. Indur Goklany writes, “…it is a strange moral calculus that endorses policies that would reduce existing gains in human well-being, increase the cost of humanity’s basic necessities, increase poverty, and reduce the terrestrial biosphere’s future productivity and ability to support biomass, all in order to solve future problems that may not even exist or, if they do, are probably more easily solved by future generations who should be richer both economically and technologically. Moreover, because food, fibre, fuel and energy – basic necessities – consume a disproportionately large share of the income of the poorest, they would also pay the highest price for these policies.” Goklany is the author of a paper “The Pontifical Academies’ Broken Moral Compass.” Read full paper here.

See also:

EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective

EPA targets wrong cause of haze in Grand Canyon

Electricity supply endangered by EPA regulations

Impact of new EPA ozone rule

EPA experiments on humans debunk their ozone and particulate matter health claims

EPA conducted illegal and potentially lethal experiments on children

The EPA is destroying America

Replace EPA

Climate science, perpetual motion and squirrels

We are in an age of amazing science these days, especially when it comes to climate change. Researchers are scrambling to establish even the remotest, and sometimes craziest, politically correct connection to climate change in order to get research grants. Here are some examples.

An article in the print edition of the Arizona Daily Star on December 17 claims that losing weight will increase your carbon footprint. Australian researchers, writing in the British Medical Journal, claim that the chemistry of weight loss will increase the amount of carbon dioxide you exhale.

Maybe those researchers should team up with these people to make a perpetual motion machine:

Danish researchers claim that increased carbon dioxide makes you eat more. (Source)

But Canadian researchers blame beavers:

Beavers are contributing to climate change, adding an estimated 800 million kg of methane to the atmosphere every year, scientists have found.

Over the last century, there has been a worldwide conservation effort to save beavers from extinction. The fur trade between the 16th and 19th century almost led to the annihilation of beavers across the globe.

However, the consequence of this has led to beavers building more ponds, creating conditions for climate changing methane gas to be generated in the shallow standing water. Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada have found this methane release from beaver ponds is now 200 times higher than it was a century ago. (Source)

No, wait. Squirrels Are Behind Global Warming

Dr Sue Natali, from Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, and Nigel Golden, from the University of Wisconsin, spent eight days in the Kolyma River watershed in north-east Siberia, Russia, studying the burrows of arctic ground squirrels.

They found that when squirrels made their burrows in the permafrost they mixed soil layers, increased aeration, moisture and temperature, as well as redistributing soil nutrients – all of which could contribute to an increased thawing of the permafrost and release of organic carbon.

As the climate warms and permafrost thaws, the fate of this large [organic carbon] pool will be driven not only by climatic conditions, but also by ecosystem changes brought about by arctic animal populations. Source

And, global warming is dangerous because:

Climate change could be causing more cougar attacks. Source

But that’s the least of our worries because:

University of Michigan scientists have claimed that global warming causes an increased risk of asteroids striking the Earth, due to expansion of the atmosphere outward into space making the Earth a bigger “target”. Source

But it’s not all bad news because we will have more cute kitties: “Milder weather in cold seasons means cats are outdoors more, doing what comes naturally, say animal workers on the frontlines [in Canada]. The result is a population explosion” of cats. (Source) Or maybe that is bad news because Pima County will have to spend even more money on an even more plush animal shelter.

Yes, it is amazing what passes for climate science these days.

UN IPCC Synthesis Report is a pack of lies

The IPCC’s new synthesis report published on November 2 puts alarmism above accuracy. There are actually two versions of the report, a “summary for policy makers” and a long version.

The IPCC claims that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar must become 80% of the power sector by 2050 or the world will face “severe, pervasive and irreversible damage.” The IPCC also says that fossil-fuel power generation without carbon capture and storage technology must be “phased out almost entirely by 2100.” Welcome to the stone age.

In five major reports since 1990, the IPCC has published thousands of pages of material, none of which provide any physical or observational evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. All their dire predictions are based on “garbage-in-garbage-out” computer modeling.

As reported by Pierre Gosselin at the NoTricksZone, the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) concludes that the IPCC report is fraught with error and distortion. “Not only does it contain major contradictions, simplifications and even falsehoods with respect to the earlier comprehensive partial reports, it is a stark contradiction to almost every measurement and trend in nature.”

Another NoTricksZone post features an article from Der Spiegel science reporter Axel Bojanowski which documents examples of IPCC factual suppression and how the UN body made glaring contradictions:

The first concerns the subject of species extinction. In the 2013 IPCC main report, no predictions were made on to what extent species were threatened, demonstrating that too little is known to make reliable forecasts. But the latest synthesis report claims species have already began dying off due to climate change.

Bojanowski also points out that the latest synthesis report writes of numerous species having been forced to relocate because of climate change. But the main 2013 report writes: “There’s very little confidence in the conclusion that already some species may have gone extinct due to climate change.”

Another misleading claim by the new synthesis report is that today’s climate change is happening faster than at any time from natural causes over the last 1 million years – thus stressing out species. But learned-geologist Bojanowski cites the main IPCC report’s real findings:

At the end of the ice age, as the first part of the UN climate report shows, in large parts of the world climate fluctuations of 10°C in 50 years, i.e. 20 times faster than in the 20th century, took place and large climate-caused species extinctions are not documented.”

Capture of the U.S. Senate in the recent election does not bode well for the IPCC. Not only is it unlikely that a Republican senate would ratify a reincarnated Kyoto-like treaty, but U.S. funding for the IPCC may be cut off.

As reported in UN Tribune: “The current Senate bill on funding for state and foreign operations includes $11,700,000 for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). The bill was approved by the current Democrat-controlled sub-committee in June but has yet to be put to a full vote. However, the House version of the bill passed by a Republican-controlled sub-committee, also in June, states that ‘none of the funds in this Act may be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.’” That almost $12 million is about one-third of the IPCC budget.

The IPCC is a political body that should be allowed to die.

See also:

Climate change in perspective

Carbon Dioxide and the Greenhouse Effect

Failure of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis

Ocean Acidification by Carbon Dioxide

Related: Jeff Id from the Air Vent blog writes this:

On The Take. An Impromptu Psychological Study of Government Science

Posted by Jeff Id on November 2, 2014

The IPCC released their “synthesis report” today. The long awaited conclusion to their massive multi-hundred billion dollar industry’s belief that they need to keep getting paid. I have listed the authors from the front page. Take a few minutes and look up some of the names on this list, copy their resume’s into the comments below. Anecdotes are appreciated. My contention is that AGW is an industry, alarm is their product, their personal pay depends on more study and extreme conclusions. Without yet checking, I believe that nobody on this list is conservative or moderate politically and the message is uniformly more government, more tax and more study.

Check out the comments: