Online Spiegel as of right now has an unflattering report on the UN IPCC AR5 climate report as its top headline.
This hardly helps the credibility of climate scientists.
The headline article is dubbed: Contradictory Prognoses: Scientists Discover Discrepancies In UN Climate Report, written by Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski.
The bold print introduction:
The UN warns in 2200 pages in its new climate report of a dramatic change in the environment. Renowned scientists now criticize the inconsistencies in the report. They aim 5 accusations at the IPCC.”
Among the discrepancies and contradictions Bojanowski mentions, a big one is the IPCC’s unscientific approach used to arrive at it’s infamous “95% certainty” that man is causing the climate change. Spiegel writes, citing Judith Curry:
How can science be certain about man’s impact when over the last 15 years the natural impacts surprisingly have stopped the warming of the air, asked climate scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology, Chairperson of the Climate Forecast Applications Network.”
Spiegel also writes that other scientists accuse the IPCC of not mentioning the uncertainties surrounding its scenarios: “In the summary of the IPCC’s report, the word pause, scientifically ‘hiatus’, is not mentioned at all.”
And the fact that only 3 of 114 models were able to correctly reproduce the 15-year hiatus, Spiegel notes, gets ignored altogether in the summary. Spiegel quotes Eduardo Zorita of the Helmholtz Center GKSS:
This point should have been more clearly addressed because it underscores that the important deficits of the climate models are still not understood.”
Spiegel is also highly skeptical of the claims made that the oceans have absorbed the heat. Bojanowski writes: “The proof of an additional buffer however appears difficult to find: Precisely at the lower depths of the oceans, which they say have especially warmed up – there, very few measurements have been made.”
Bojanowski also notes that in the previous reports, the IPCC always showed an increasing temperature curve. This time however, the usual line curve was replaced with a decadal “trapeze” chart. “Good PR“, says Reiner Grundmann of the University of Nottingham, “but is that sustainable?”
Bojanowski mentions the IPCC’s failure not to inform the public that there is no connection found between extreme weather and climate change. That should have been pointed out in the summary.
Bojanowski writes that signs of trouble for the IPCC’s AR5 report were already evident at the press conference for its presentation in Stockholm. A “reporter from a British tabloid” asked why the computer simulations failed to predict the 15-year stop in temperature rise. That, Spiegel writes, was a question that the chief of the World Meteorological Organisation WMO, Michel Jarraud, was not pleased to hear.
Bojanowski concludes from that:
Apparently the meteorologist was not used to this; critical questions do not particularly belong to the tradition of press conferences on climate science.”
Another shortcoming of the IPCC report for some scientists, Bojanowski writes: A “faction” of scientists claims the report underestimates the seriousness of the climate.