Guest author Kenneth Richard has updated the lists of papers that do not support the claimed “climate science consensus” for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (just added). The updated list for 2015 has been posted (see right side bar under “Pages”) and now includes 282 papers.
IPCC climate reports are emerging as only half reports. Image: IPCC
2014 will be updated soon.
2016 has just been added to the “Pages” side bar.
As the body of evidence refuting climate alarmism continues to balloon, the question of how the IPCC can continue ignoring it becomes ever more glaring. Clearly the IPCC has weighted alarmist papers over those that are not.
660 papers in just over 2 years
Over the last 27 months over 660 scientific peer-reviewed papers have ben published refuting alarmist claims on everything from temperature rise, climate model integrity, droughts, extreme weather events, floods to hurricanes, sea level rise, etc.
Overhauled IPCC is needed
Now is not the time to disband the IPCC, but rather it is time to completely overhaul it and assure it does its task objectively and without an agenda.
Though most of the papers the Kenneth Richard lists support that climate change is happening (it always has) and that human activity appears to be one factor, the alarmist scenarios often trumpeted by the media and IPCC scientists are in fact turning out to be more hype and less reality.
According to Kenneth Richard, who has spent hundreds of hours meticulously analyzing the body of climate science literature, already this year alone (2016) some 133 consensus-skeptical papers have been published.
35 responses to “IPCC Needs To Start Over… Already 133 “Consensus-Skeptical” Papers In 2016 …Over 660 Past Two Years!”
“IPCC’s mandate is not to study climate change “in the round,” or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate. It is to specifically find and report a human impact on climate, and thereby make a scientific case for the adoption of national and international policies that would supposedly reduce that impact.”
The IPCC mandate ONLY allows them to look for anthropogenic influences, so naturally that’s all they will “find,” even if there aren’t any.
I don’t see any reason to trust the same crooks to overhaul what they made corrupt to begin with, and what we can do perfectly well without. Just scrap it already, and be done with it.
Glad to see you mention this.
I have done so several times. Will do so again when it seems to fit a post.
97% of folks do not know this part of the UN scam.
Okay, I just grabbed that number from someplace.
“Okay, I just grabbed that [97%] number from someplace”
It sure seems like it, as little push-back as the pols are getting on this. (probably a lot more accurate than anything the IPCC has ever put out, as well)
On re-reading, what I wrote may be confusing. What I meant was…
“It [the 97%] sure seems like it is correct, or close to it,…” …and the rest as is.
From a philosophical point of view this is interesting, Yonason. The IPCC should look for confirmations, not for falsifications. A false theory implies everything, true or false, which makes confirming evidence pretty worthless. We almost have forgotten that there is much evidence for the phlogiston theory, all the evidence once used by the eighteenth century theorists. That evidence is still there and an International Phlogiston Corporate Council may collect it and present it to the world. All the negative studies, like those mentioned above, can be ignored by this IPCC because they do not contribute to their cause. The real IPCC is a logical monstrosity and I still wonder how a scientist could cooperate with it.
“From a philosophical point of view this is interesting, Yonason. The IPCC should look for confirmations, not for falsifications. ”
It’s a government commission. They always have their objective and scope predefined.
“The real IPCC is a logical monstrosity and I still wonder how a scientist could cooperate with it” – Mindert Eiting
Some have resigned, but not enough. I’m guessing it probably pays really well. And then there’s the international prestige.
Expanding, hopefully accurately, on what DirkH wrote: They are following the “logic” of the mandate with which they have been charged. To deviate from that mandate would be illogical. Sadly, adhering to it is, in the larger context of reality, irrational.
I completely agree with W.W.Little’s assessment that, “Once a large organization becomes as corrupted as the IPCC, I do not believe it can be ‘overhauled’.”
“The IPCC mandate ONLY allows them to look for anthropogenic influences, so naturally that’s all they will “find,” even if there aren’t any.”
This is total garbage.
Look at what the IPCC says, not some garbage site on the internet:
Look up the climate change definition on the IPCC site:
Climate change refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which defines “climate change” as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” See also climate variability.”
Your extremist internet source gave you false informations. again.
Well let’s look again, and let’s look at the regime-aligned source wikipedia.
“The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system”. IPCC reports cover “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.””
So let’s boil this down: The UNFCCC has the goal of controlling basically all energy-converting processes of the entire world via control of CO2 – and the IPCC is its data processing agency to get a scientific justification for that.
All these sentences in the wikipedia have been guarded by trusted regime lackays like William E. Connolley, Brigade Harvester Boris and the third guy was I thinkk called SCHULZ, and they have triggers on all climate change related articles and revert any change by an outsider within milliseconds so go ahead tell me the wikipedia is NOT 100% regime controlled…
“Your extremist internet source gave you false informations. again.” – sod
We want to live our lives free from fascist interference and useless wasteful folly, and they want to be our masters and to control every aspect of our lives; and you call us “extremists?!”
The sad part is, that you haven’t a clue how ridiculous that is.
I appreciate the tremendous time and effort put into compiling these lists. It has made my research on the topic much easier and has provided me with a significant source to share with others.
My only disagreement is with the concluding section suggesting it is not time to disband the IPCC. Once a large organization becomes as corrupted as the IPCC, I do not believe it can be “overhauled.” There are too many people, and, in this case, countries involved with positions so entrenched, it is not possible to backtrack without them completely losing face and, along with it, power and money. Because of the power and money aspect, I do not believe it possible for governments to ever be involved in scientific research without corruption. In my view, the IPCC needs to be eliminated and not replaced. If scientists (I am a scientist, a geologist.) feel the need to have an international body, let them do it through a privately funded professional society, not through the corrupting influence of governments picking the “winning side” based on political motives.
Again, thanks for the hard work put into this site.
I was going to make a post with almost exactly the same reasoning except I was going to suggest that they needed to start a new organisation from scratch.
But after reading your comment, I agree that any centrally regulated body will always be subject to influence from the parent organisation so I support your assertion that studies of climate (any actually) science needs to be fully independent.
It’s quite noticeable how many geologists are CAGW sceptics – having the long view gives you a fuller perspective on climate change, I suppose. Dr Colin Summerhayes is one of the few that seem to be staunchly on the warmist/alarmist “side”
Why should not the IPCC be unfunded?
Clearly a political, not scientific, animal, it should not burden the public with its POV and costs.
I agree with the above comments that the IPCC cannot be redirected, too much inertia and too much pride and money involved. A committee composed of mostly corrupt government members, and thus, corrupt funding sources/recipients cannot be corrected or repaired it must be eliminated.
My wish -forget the whole thing, second choice-start all over without UN oversight and government funding.
In the past I have been very critical of the IPCC and its reports, particularly the “Summary for Policymakers” sections. But I believe that (a) their reports are getting better over time and (b) that the IPCC mission is too important to abandon it.
My solution would be to keep funding it, but to also take steps to ensure that its mission and methods are clearly explicated on an ongoing basis, and monitored for corruption. We need to keep the spotlight on where the worst abuses originate from: the activists, journalists, businessmen, and politicians who twist the reports and filter out all the nuance, caveats, and doubts with the aim of decarbonizing civilization as rapidly as possible.
In other words, the IPCC is not perfect, but neither are they the main source of carbon paranoia.
WHERE TO BEGIN…
“In the past I have been very critical of the IPCC and its reports, particularly the “Summary for Policymakers” sections.”
So? All that tells me is that you want to establish some ‘common ground’ with skeptical readers, perhaps making the rest of your comments more palatable to us? It doesn’t.
“But I believe that
(a) their reports are getting better over time and
(b) that the IPCC mission is too important to abandon it.”
I.e., you guys are carrying things way too far. Let’s be reasonable here.
No, let’s not.
a- their reports are getting better???
I don’t think so.
b – their “mission” is too important to abandon it???
It is their “mission” that is the root of the problem. It is what MUST be stopped, if that’s possible.
“My solution would be to keep funding it.”
Kicking the can down the road is what politicians do, not problem solvers. But, if you can personally afford it, go right ahead. Just count me out.
“but to also take steps to ensure that its mission and methods are clearly explicated on an ongoing basis, and monitored for corruption.”
We ARE talking about the same UN here, aren’t we? If so, their corruption is a foregone conclusion. Their mission and methods are merely an embodiment of said corruption. Setting up another corrupt bureaucracy will not solve, but only compound the problem.
“We need to keep the spotlight on where the worst abuses originate from: the activists, j ournalists, businessmen, and politicians who twist the reports and filter out all the nuance, caveats, and doubts with the aim of decarbonizing civilization as rapidly as possible.”
I repeat. This is the UN we are talking about. Your pie in the sky childish idealism isn’t up to the task of rehabilitating world class miscreants.
“In other words, the IPCC is not perfect,”
Understatement of the century.
“but neither are they the main source of carbon paranoia.”
And to whom, pray tell, would you assign that distinction? They are the main driving force, and a a refuge for all who share their demented “mission.” If we were able to eliminate the IPCC, that would be the best first step in solving the problem
Obama just wrote the first check to the UN for $500,000,000.
Lets do no tricks, straight up simple math…okay looong math but that’s my style.
By 2012 there where 13,900 peer-reviewed papers stating aGW was currying, 24 were rejected.
We are now beginning 2016, so there are more peer-reviewed papers stating aGW is currying but since REAL PEER REVIEWS TAKES TIME as in one has to READ the entire paper not just paragraphs they “like” one can figure there are a few hundred more just about to be published for their next Officially stated year (2013). Remember, since there are not an infinite number of scientist one figure the amount of ALL scientist left to write papers as to their thoughts on the Globe warming crisis and why its happening will be going down on both sides during the next few years.
notrickszone says for those that state aGW is real that their is a “cooking” of the books (form of spinning the word “lying” so they don’t get sued) and notrickszone claims that to say there is a 97% consensus of scientists agreeing that aGW is real, is false.
Lets accept all papers notrickszone is posting event hough a few dozens should be stamped as no longer skeptical yet not in favour of aGW either. Maybe not count them for either side or count them for both sides of the aGW argument as Neutral. Neutral?, as in the writer/author of those notrickszone linked pages for whatever reason becoming nuetral on the subject. One reason to go from skeptic as to aGW to nuetral could be that those papers where written a few years ago (some papers written in the 1980s-90s stated cooling after 2000 AD, …15 years later its 2015/2016 still warming, oops) and they thought their theories had the planet cooling but its been warming ever since.
Even the so called “lull” in aGW was NOT cooling, it was just not warming at such a fast rate as it was for the previous several years, then came the last few years and shattered that theory.
Not really cooling?…How come notrickszone states its not warming.
notrickszone is using a form of spin.
Try the following example/analogy and in the end think if in your heart you can directly say the temperature cause its not warming as fast can be called a lull in warming or without getting yourself too dizzy try spinning it into the cooling category.
You have a 100F fever at 9pm, 101F at midnight and 103F at 3AM, You go to the doctor and you use the same thermometer to show that you have 103.6F at 6AM, and even by touch nurses and Dr.s can tell your body’s temperature is very high. Can notrickszone publish that you are in a lull as to warming even throw in a reference to cooling or is it that your body has reached a point where half a degree means much more than a full degree did when you had your body went from 99F to 100F? Even if your body stayed at 103F at 6AM is that cooling, AND if after staying at 103 till noon then the same thermometer reads at 3pm 103.5F was that lull of 103 for several hours helpful to your body or is it better to have place you in an ice bath at 103F. Sadly the planets “ice bath” is melting away and i know of no company that can make trillions of ice cubes per day to at least slow down the melting areas.
There inevitably will be more years NOT as warm as the proceeding years BUT THAT IS NOT COOLING that is holding steady as to being a warmer, slowly dying life sustaining planet.
So in the follow count i’m accepting all papers that notrickszone has posted but not all that state aGW might have to post soon as i am not counting aGW upholding papers that have yet to be fully peer reviewed thus stopping at 2012 as to peer reviewed papers on upholding the aGW statements
Therefore its 13,900 papers aGW supportive plus 375 (282+93=375) saying its not aGW but something else or some combination of other things.
13,900 + 375 = 14,275
14,275 divided by 13,900 means 0.9737302 or that the percentage of peer reviewed papers that fall on the fact that the planet is warming due to man influenced reasons is 97%+, or the percentage that think the planet is not warming or warming due to only natural reasons but not due to man’s influence is almost 3%.
notrickszone, your own numbers show that its not 97% of peer reviewed papers lean towards man influenced global warming but a bit higher at 97.3%.
notrickszone please explain that, again these are notrickszone numbers (when notrickszone or links notrickszone presents as being in their corner states that the consensus of 97% is false, one has to back and find how many are in that 97%, its 13,900) and i’m only counting the aGW believers till 2012 while counting notrickszone links including all of 2015.
Now i’ bent backwards since skeptics and/or skeptic$ had no peer reviewed papers till 2014 otherwise the only papers the skeptics had when i stop counting the peer reviewed papers of aGW upholders were the 29 to 30 rejected through the peer reviews as to aGW upholders. Another question is why did not the companies / shareholders that make money by manufacturing products that add more pollutants instead of fighting the findings try investing in ways to create cleaner fuels thus TRULY SAVE JOBS and help your children grow in a healthier less costly environment and by now 20-30 years later be happy making MUCH more money with cleaner fuels/engines and not have to worry of finding ways to fight people whom want to help clean our home (earth) and / or be in court delaying DELAYING DELAYING. Even if those shareholders wanted not to change the companies products why did they not THEN 20 30 years ago find or pay for studies to refute the 90+% plus peer reviewed paper? Why wait so long?
Why do i use two spellings of skeptics?
aGW Skeptics are people whom truly think there are or must be other reasons the planet is warming, usually young people learning.
Example:: Thinking it might be the Sun, but if the Sun is in a cooling phase then it might be some Galactic motion but if its proven not to be the Galactic motion of this solar system then it might be some unknown energy flow. At least skeptics do not repeat what was already proven not to be so. At least you go through those thoughts once and move on and in time figure out what else can it be and come to the conclusion that man through the pollutants accumulating over the years is warming the planet. Just like it is not one car years ago that lead to smog its was so many cars with no pollutant standards that spewed out so much crap and once the cars met better standards drivers where happy to get a few more miles per gallon and the industry was happier to save money by not going to court over & over and your children where happier in being able to breath in cleaner air. The problem is aGW does not bother people directly till its to late, unlike someone running a “dirty” car in the garage next door and you smell all that exhaust ask to stop it and hopefully a good neighbors fixes that problem. Here aGW is not stinking up da joint so skeptic$ can say “what aGW?” as most people notice weather is acting weird in having 1-300 year storms every 3-5 years but still lull in storms gives enough of a rest period to not place aGW (if i may say) on the “front burner” as to important things.
aGW Skeptic$ are people whom just repeat the same reasoning that has been proven not to be, but they repeat those same words as money sometimes greed is what makes them skeptic$, might be workers in oil companies and instead of refitting the company to become cleaner thus more money for workers and a cleaner company they’ve been told its better to keep quiet do your job and say as the company memo says. aGW skeptic$ will repeat for months, years – its the Sun yet the sun is in a cooling phase/quiet phase. Then they say that the cooling phase gets the planet warmer but don’t explain how that does not fit into the previous 75 years where the opposite happened. Then aGw skeptic$ say its been warmer on Earth before its just a cycle, yet cannot explain why its warming much faster than it has since man has been on earth or even a few million years before man walked earth. Remember try not to use a period when either man did not exist nor animals roamed Earth surface to defend that it is NOT aGW, since the reason the animals were only in the water (ocean) was cause it was too hot to thrive on land and that defends that aGW/GW is not a good thing for those that walk on land. Then aGW skeptics will state how can one trust readings EVEN THOUGH they brought up the same method of taking readings that presented Earth was warmer (at a much slower rate) when most animals did not roam the land on this planet.
So there i questioned what i read as the Jacob Bronowski quotes states.
Plus how much more will the corrective action cost if one waits, did returning money owed on a bet cost less when returned on time or when when one allowed interested to build on it. aGw will not be paid in million, billions, trillions it will be paid by lives lost to more weather extremes.
Mike of comment #29, what price do you put on lives, be it others or goodness forbid someone you know.
Me?, i want your children to live better off and not have to pay for my generations errors.
[blah, blah, blah…ramble, ramble, ramble…-PG]
Quite an impressive unending diatribe of discordant thought flashes. I hope this is not how you talk as well, because I couldn’t imagine anyone conversing with you at any social occasion. Do you find people avoiding you?
Perhaps you could sum all of this up in a few clear and concise sentences?
Poor viso… you should certainly stick to SIMPLE maths…
let me guess… maths as taught to a sociology student !!!
Seems viso also skipped English punctuation and sentence construction classes.
a source for the numbers would be nice.
viso seems to say (in very many words), that even accepting all papers here as rejecting AGW would still leave a very high level of support for the consensus.
The real problem with the majority of papers here are:
1. most are not real papers.
2. most do not contradict AGW.
The IPCC does not go into the projected extreme events, since there is low confidence in the models and statistics regarding the extreme indices. The mean is the most common way of projecting the future by the scenarios in the IPCC (which have confidence intervals as well). If you have knowledge in climate science, you should know that the climate shift expected can give us a change in mean, but also a change in frequency, e.g. potentially less “mean” days, higher frequency of the extreme days (97th or 99th percentile for example). There will always be models showing worse than IPCC and that criticizes it, but the publications IPCC are based on, all show a similar trend that IPCC clearify for the public. Having less reports/articles stating worse future changes is something IPCC takes into account, but the aim is to be as sure as possible (hence their confidence levels through out the paper) and thereby the results of there scenarios and there statements. And there is something called climate variability/natural variability, feedbacks and many other factors playing its role in the climate system.
So please, if you lack skills in statistics, earth science and climate science; read in on the subject and you will see the skills that are needed to criticize all the authors and scientists behind IPCC.
“The mean is the most common way of projecting the future by the scenarios in the IPCC (which have confidence intervals as well). If you have knowledge in climate science, you should know that the climate shift expected can give us a change in mean,”
Josefine, the average of temperatures is undefined, as the Law Of Large Numbers does not hold for Cauchy-type distributions.
If you are so savvy in statistics, please tell us why the IPCC uses a mathematically undefined metric, thanks. I’d really like to know, as it doesn’t make sense at all.
“Josefine, the average of temperatures is undefined, as the Law Of Large Numbers does not hold for Cauchy-type distributions.”
Dirk, you have read some nonsense on the internet, here:
(read the comments “the chifio” is taken apart to tiny bits)
Now you are passing that nonsense on, on other websites.
I fear that this is the source of most of the misinformation among people who call themselves “sceptics”.
please explain to me, why the measured temperature on earth would follow a cauchy distribution!
And even a cauchy distribution seems to have a median, which would do just fine!
The whole concept seems to be interesting from a mathematical position, but utterly irrelevant to the science if climate change.
I will try to illustrate a (slightly) similar problem on a much more simple example, a cauchy sequence:
There are sequences of rational numbers which converge towards an irrational number. now if the numbers would be iterating around the target number from both sides, you could say the sequence has “no mean” inside the rational numbers (as the mean should be the irrational number that the sequence is converging on). But for all practical purpose, this would be irrelevant.
sob skipped basic high school maths, it seems.
Needs wiki to teach him… roflmao !!
“sob skipped basic high school maths, it seems.”
No, i did not. but basic high school math is more than enough to figure out, that every finite set of numbers (and that is, what we get when we take real thermometer readings) has a mean.
I will explain the method to you in detail again: sum up all the readings, then divide by the number of readings. This will give you the mean and it will always exist (what ever distribution lies beyond it, will not matter at all for any finite set of numbers).
“Needs wiki to teach him… roflmao !!”
Funny, but i knew a bit about Cauchy before this strange debate was started by Dirk. Did you?
But let me ask two simple questions:
1. why is global temperature related to a Cauchy distribution?
2. what would change if we use a median for all calculations, instead of a (potentially) non-existing mean?
cut and paste, sob.. that’s how you gain understanding 😉
“And even a cauchy distribution seems to have a median, which would do just fine!”
Median temperatures? I thought average temperatures are the metric on which the survival of the planet depends?
Warmuni$ts make it up as they go along.
See, sod: NOBODY prepares for the AVERAGE temperature. EVERYBODY prepares for the MINIMUM and the MAXIMAUM temperature. That’s why weather forecasters NEVER tell you the AVERAGE temperature.
Because it’s meaningless in multiple regards. Hey, I’m dressed perfectly for the average temperature, now I’m freezing, and now I’m sweating, what happened?
We also (nearly) NEVER EXPERIENCE the AVERAGE temperature. So why would anyone prepare for it? We could just as well prepare for the MEDIAN temperature . Which, again, NOBODY does.
Hey let’s prepare for the AVERAGE sea level! That’s much better than preparing for high tides, don’t you think so.
I could go on and on but you don’t get it anyway.
“Median temperatures? I thought average temperatures are the metric on which the survival of the planet depends? ”
The Median is a type of average.
Or if you want a non-wiki source:
It looks like you do not know anything about this subject.
“See, sod: NOBODY prepares for the AVERAGE temperature. EVERYBODY prepares for the MINIMUM and the MAXIMAUM temperature. ”
What are you talking about? looking at MINIMUM or MAXIMUM you would also want to calculate an average. The average of the maxima or minima. You can do this either by calculating a mean or a median.
And if you want to know anything about Maxima or minima, you will want to know the average, so you can see how far the maximum is away from the “average”.
“That’s why weather forecasters NEVER tell you the AVERAGE temperature”
Weather forecasters always tell us an average. It is averages over time and over regions.
You simply should not only listen to the “top temperature at day” or “lowest night temperature” but also look at the maps or listen to the rest of the message.
” We could just as well prepare for the MEDIAN temperature . Which, again, NOBODY does.”
Sorry, but that is plain out false. Of course your winter wardrobe will be oriented along the average winter temperature, not the minimum one your region ever saw.
And if we go out early in the morning or in the early evening we prepare for the changes in temperature, basically dressing for the average with some extra for the minimum.
“since there is low confidence in the models”
YES… very low confidence
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2016/03/27/ipcc-needs-to-start-over-already-133-consensus-skeptical-papers-i… […]
Pierre – You may be interested to know this blog post has been extensively covered in a Washington Times article of 10 April:
More studies rebut climate change consensus amid government crackdown on dissent
Well done to you and Kenneth!