UN

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:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/on-the-take-an-impromptu-psychological-study-of-government-science/#comments

UN admits that growing crops to produce biofuel is bad for environment

The London Telegraph claims to be in possession of a leaked UN IPCC report which says in effect that growing crops to make “green” biofuel [ethanol and biodiesel] harms the environment and drives up food prices.” See Telegraph story here. The UN will publish the report on March 31. It will be interesting to see if the final version is the same as the “leaked” version. If so, then the story will represent a reversal of UN “scientific consensus” on biofuels.

The Telegraph story says “that biofuels, rather than combating the effects of global warming, could make them worse.”

As I noted in an ADI story last November, “…the ethanol era has proved far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today…As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies…Five million acres set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite national parks combined — have vanished on Obama’s watch.” The biofuels industry is heavily subsidized and about 40 percent of U.S. corn crop goes to produce ethanol rather than being used as food.

In a Telegraph story published last December, The Great Biofuels Scandal, Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, wrote, “The biofuel story is a perfect example of good intentions leading to terrible outcomes. Moreover, it is a lesson on how powerful, pseudo-green vested interests can sustain a bad policy. Hopefully, it will also be a story of how reason can prevail in the divisive climate debate.”

The Telegraph notes, “Studies show that as land is dedicated to energy crops, land for food is simply taken from other areas – often forests – leading to substantial CO2 emissions. And processing biofuels emits CO2, drastically reducing benefits.”

For more on ethanol in ADI, see: Ethanol mandate fails economically and environmentally

In my Wryheat blog, see : Biofuels program destroying grasslands in American Midwest

EPA, ethanol, and catch 22

Ethanol fuel not as green as you think

Ethanol from Sugarcane, not so green

The total result of the Durban climate change conference

After an intense two-week conference in Durban, South Africa, the 10,000 or so delegates and hangers-on came up with “The Durban Plan For Enhanced Action.”

It says essentially that we should plan to plan how to keep “emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C or 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels…”

You can read the entire document here.  It’s only two pages long.

I wonder what the carbon footprint for that conference was?