Swiss News Weekly Delivers Massive Blow To IPCC: “Fortune Tellers, Not Scientists” … “Skeptics On The Rise”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Weltwoche_IPCC chartSwiss news magazine Weltwoche (World Week) print edition just published a stinging article about the now disgraced IPCC’s fifth assessment report Summary for Policymakers where it describes the refusal by scientists to acknowledge observations and their obstinate clinging to faulty models and doomsday scenarios.

Figure right: from Weltwoche report, “Faulty Prognoses from Scientists”

The introductory heading of the Weltwoche reports reads:

For a quarter of a century leading climate scientists have been warning of a dangerous global warming due to CO2 emissions. Now under Swiss leadership [Thomas Stocker] they publish a new report. It shows: The scientists were wrong. By Markus Schär.”

Weltwoche writes how IPCC lead scientist Thomas Stocker may have experienced an historic moment when he introduced the IPCC’s AR5 Summary for policymakers, but one he may not wish.

Crumbling consensus

Weltwoche writes that in the days leading up to the report’s release, a dispute prevailed among the delegates who were busy hammering out the final text. The Germans wanted no mention of the 15 years of no warming, the Belgians wanted to keep the year 1998 out of the statistics, the Hungarians advised to hold back facts in order “not to provide climate skeptics with ammunition“.

Weltwoche writes that Dutch delegates, however, insisted on including the natural impacts on climate change which refuted the claims of galloping global warming. One thing is sure, writes Weltwoche, the IPCC must come to terms with: “The consensus among the climate scientists that had been cemented over the last decades, is cracking – or is even crumbling completely.”

“Pitiful” model performance

To explain what is driving this crumbling consensus, Weltwoche looks at the history of global warming, reminding readers of the doomsday prognoses made in the past by experts like NASA’s James Hansen and by the IPCC years ago. For example in 1988 James Hansen “predicted that with an annual increase in CO2 emissions of 1.5%, the temperature would rise by 1.5°C by 2011. But in fact CO2 emissions rose 2.5% annually and the temperature ended only 0.3°C higher – even below the value that scientists had calculated if no CO2 had stopped being added beginning in the year 2000“.

Worse for the IPCC, British meteorologists recently forecasted a cooling ahead for the next few years, Weltwoche writes.

Weltwoche comments as follows on this miserable performance:

Anyone that far off is not a scientist, rather he’s a fortune teller – and one with a pitiful performance.”

IPCC devestated by observed data

Today, the IPCC’s latest report ends up contradicting all the earlier forecasts and warnings it made earlier. Weltwoche writes (my emphasis):

In its new report, the IPCC refutes itself. … They [scientists] tried time and again to defend their theory using tweaked models and honed studies. It gladly made itself vulnerable to attack by making forecasts that it could not live to see. After 25 years many of the forecasts can indeed now be evaluated – the result for the IPCC is devatasting.

IPCC abandons Mann’s flawed hockey stick

Weltwoche then explains the sorrowful story of Michael Mann’s hockey stick in depth and how it was shown to be flawed by a Canadian statistics expert and how the IPCC eventually abandoned it altogether in that they conceded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were real after all. Weltwoche writes:

The draft of the new IPCC report also admits that the same warm temperatures we have today also prevailed at the peak of the Medieval Warm Period and that people suffered later on during the ‘Little Ice Age’ – the climate Bible of 2001 with its hockey stick chart was obviously wrong.”

Lomborg: 20 trillion euros for 0.05°C

Weltwoche writes that the IPCC has (quietly) reduced CO2 climate sensitivity values, yet continues to insist that the world embark on a crash-course energy supply transformation. Too expensive, says Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg. Weltwoche quotes Lomborg:

But we also need to recognize that our current climate policy is too expensive. Every year the EU wants to spend 250 billion euros until the year 2100. With this 20 trillion euros, the temperature will drop by 0.05°C by 2100.”

But none of this impresses Stocker and the IPCC, who continue sounding the alarms louder than ever. Weltwoche concludes:

The important thing is alarm, as Stocker continues to maintain what he told Weltwoche in April: ‘The problem is there, and it is one of the biggest ever for mankind, and we have the choice of how big it is going to be.'”

In the models, or in reality?

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

19 responses to “Swiss News Weekly Delivers Massive Blow To IPCC: “Fortune Tellers, Not Scientists” … “Skeptics On The Rise””

  1. DirkH

    “Weltwoche writes that Dutch delegates, however, insisted on including the natural impacts on climate change which refuted the claims of galloping global warming.”

    That’s interesting. So not all ex-souvereign nations / EU slave territories toe the party line. Canada and Australia already lost; now the EU ultrastate itself crumbles. That’s the end.

    Warsaw video feeds will be fun.

    1. Bernd Felsche

      Warsaw video feeds will be fun.

      I predict a snow-job. Perhaps 2 metres deep. 😉

      Thermostats set to the average temperature of the planet, please. To increase the sense of “urgency”.

  2. Mindert Eiting

    A journalist with quality. Who’s next?

  3. G. Watkins

    I only wish UK politicians were regular readers of World Week. An excellent article in a mainstream publication.
    BTW thanks DirkH for telling me about Linke a few days ago.

  4. Casper

    I’ll tell you what will be.
    The Global Cooling continues, but…
    The IPCC will tell us, our climate policy was right and increasing renewable energy sources led to temperature drop.
    Or the IPCC will tell us, the global warming doesn’t contradict the global cooling which will certainly happen after it.
    Anyway, we will pay for it. You and me in our bills. And nothing we can do with it!

  5. Paul Burtwistle

    So when are the individuals responsible for this deception going to be held accountable for their actions?
    The IPCC has been shown to be fraudulent on several occasions and the policies implemented on their fraudulent advice has led to hardship and suffering for millions accross the globe and in particul for the world poorest.
    In my opinion they are no better than war criminals yet I doubt that they will ever be punished in any way.
    I also agree with Casper – the fraudulent behaviour will continue and all of us will end up paying extra taxes to foot the bill.

    1. DirkH

      You know what the definition of a war crime at the Nuremberg trials was? That it was committed by the Axis powers; not by any ally including Uncle Joe.

      Same will go for the IPCC. The rent seekers will get more awards, Nobels, grants, etc.

      Today, war crimes are prosecuted by the UN ICC. Ever heard of the UN ICC prosecuting another UN org? Yeah, me neither.

  6. David

    Furthermore, as has been shown in Climate Agenda, linked in the Bishop Hill blog, the IPCC has brazenly ‘moved the goalposts’ in several of their graphs – which could be construed as taxpayer-funded fraud…

  7. Kurt in Switzerland

    Pierre,

    Check out the commentary column by Alex Reichmuth in the latest edition of the Weltwoche (out today): (Cold Sweat and Climate), an excellent follow-up to Markus Schär’s piece which you highlight here.

    Reichmuth makes an argument for the IPCC’s demise, much like the movement around the phenomenon of Waldsterben, which fizzled out after the catastrophe failed to materialize.

    Kurt in Switzerland

  8. Colin Megson

    Climate change deniers – what’s your problem

    Why occupy your time and devote so much energy to battling supporters of AGW and CAGW?

    Isn’t the point really, that you object to the cost and ineffectual solutions proposed by disciples of the various renewable-energy technologies?

    Write to your Representatives and spend your time commenting about the IdiocyOfRenewables, instead of wasting your time trying to battle the scientific and political powers of the IPCC.

    1. Ed Caryl

      We do that also, but the basis for our complaint is the falseness of the supposed science behind CAGW.

    2. DirkH

      Colin Megson
      3. Oktober 2013 at 12:48 | Permalink | Reply
      “Why occupy your time and devote so much energy to battling supporters of AGW and CAGW?”

      You obviously haven’t seen me battling anyone.

      No, I don’t battle warmists. I follow their exploits with bemusement. You learn so much about their techniques.

  9. Berthold Klein

    The weather /aka nature has shown that it does not listen to the flat screen fortune tellers.
    If the large number of Climatologist ( not all) are really scientists why haven’t they asker one simple question: ” Where is the credible experiment that proves that the “greenhouse gas effect hypotheses” exists? The flat screen fortune tellers prefer to look at circumstantial evidence. As we have learned much of this circumstantial evidence has been Mann-ipulated to fit the conclusion that the AGW/environmental vampires wanted.
    There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph.D. physicists . Ph.D. Chemical engineers and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist”
    The web-site http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com has been changed the new link to many relevent papers is: http://us.mg201.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.partner=sbc&.gx=1&.rand=f4dv049je9jpl

    Greenhouse Theory Computer Fail: Real Evidence Slays Carbon ‘Science’

  10. Now that Global Warming is Dead, environmentalists are gearing up for next scare story | Quixotes Last Stand

    […] It’s good to see that there are a few journalists who actually take journalism seriously and question what they are being told. One publication that has been doing a good job on this is Switzerland-based Weltwoche, which has written two pieces about the latest IPCC report. See here and here. […]

  11. Keep calm and save the Earth | Global Clarity

    […] Swiss News Weekly Delivers Massive Blow To IPCC: “Fortune Tellers, Not Scientists” &#823… (notrickszone.com) […]

  12. Le Rapport du GIEC, l’AR5, a été publié :: RESILIENCETV

    […] ce fait qui dérange a tiré le tapis sous leurs pieds…Alors que faire ?" Weltwoche (Suisse, 01/10/13 édition papier, Markus Schär) : "Le pronostic des scientifiques […]

  13. Brian H

    Ignorance apparently carries a lot of weight with the IPCC.
    –CO2 emitted by humans must be causing post-LIA Global Warming because the IPCC ‘can’t think of anything else’
    –Mitigation costing $20 Trillion by 2100 must be enforced, even though its own figures project a 1/20K impact at best, because the IPCC ‘can’t think of anything else to do’

    But there is no escape from the grip of the Invisible Hand, which ensures the Real Price will always be paid. The costs are already driving governments bankrupt, and businesses are voting with their feet. Carbon Trading schemes gravitate to $0/ton prices as soon as enforced purchase requirements are relaxed.

    The world continues to green from CO2 enrichment.
    Cooling flexes its muscles world-wide, showing up Warmist policies as suicidal.

    And so it goes.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close