IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained Scientists”

German IPCC critic: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, Image: GWPF

IPCC’s sixth climate report disappoints across the board

By Die kalte Sonne
(Translated, headings by P. Gosselin)

The IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report on Climate (AR6) was published yesterday, August 9, 2021. Fritz Vahrenholt has summarized the most important things on Roland Tichys Einblick.

“Climate models (CMIP6) have failed across the board”

One notices in the report that it’s primarily politically and less scientifically anchored. How can it be the uncertainty range of CO2 climate sensitivity (i.e. the climate effectiveness of CO2) has been drastically narrowed down when the latest climate models (CMIP6) have failed across the board?

Reruns of an old myth

Curious: one of the chapter authors (Mauritsen) himself has for years represented a value well below the new range of 2.5-4.0°C per doubling of CO2. As in the 2001 AR3 report, the IPCC again is pushing a hockey stick in the summary for politicians. Allegedly, the climate of the past has hardly changed.

PAGES2K controversy

‘Die Welt’ conducted an interview with paleoclimatologist Ulf Büntgen, who explained how there had been a scandal in the PAGES2k group responsible for the new hockey stick. Many members left the group because they did not agree with the approach. Exactly as our Klimaschau had already speculated in 2020.

IPCC on this ice

Also peculiar: The IPCC states that this time it would use less the climate models for its forecasts (because they failed, but you don’t say that so openly), but instead the known climate past. And just that (“the son of the hockey stick”) is as wrong as the model results.

The IPCC is on very thin ice with this. It assumes rock solid that 100% of the warming since 1850 is man-made. All natural climate factors, which must have worked in former times (because the pre-industrial climate changed also significantly) must have been switched off today by “magic hand”. How does that work?

Flawed extreme weather models

Equally curious is that the report now sees a man-made component in extreme weather quite definitely. That’s pretty crazy, because most extreme weather has no trend at all over the last 150 years. And the models of Friederike Otto and colleagues regularly fail in the task of mapping extreme weather trends over the last pre-industrial millennia. These flawed models are then used to make the “attribution” i.e. assignment of man vs. nature. It’s like driving without a license.

Using “unlikely RCP 8.5 emissions scenario” a “serious mistake”

The AR6 treats the unlikely RCP 8.5 emissions scenario as if it were a plausible possibility. A serious mistake that misinforms politicians and other non-specialists. Now the air is getting thin for the IPCC because the AR6 has nothing to do with an open-ended, neutral summary of the state of knowledge. Only the ONE side of the scientific opinion spectrum is included.

Critical side excluded

Critics were not allowed to write in from the beginning. They were allowed to unload their frustration as reviewers and write down their criticism. However, they ended up directly in the wastepaper basket. The review editors were elected by the same political body as the authors, the IPCC board. And the board is elected by the governments, especially the green-influenced environment ministries of the countries.

“Scientific foundation as weak as ever”

After all the dust from this week’s AR6 report settles, things will likely, quickly become quiet about this new report. Because those involved know what they have hid from the public, where it gets dicey. True to the motto “The show must go on”, the AR6 was put on the stage with lots of hype although the scientific foundation was as weak as ever.

Stained scientists

The authors involved will be professionally rewarded by their governments. From the point of view of scientific ethics, however, a stain now sticks to them. For one may assume that the broad outlines of AR6 were already determined BEFORE they were written. The wide range of CO2 climate sensitivity had long been a thorn in everyone’s side. For 30 years the range existed, without progress. Now one has simply reduced the span by force, without technical basis. A true magic trick, but its illusion will be gone shortly thereafter.

Luke-warmers have the science on their side

Because research continues. The researchers who favor a value below 2.5°C/2xCO2 have strong scientific arguments that they will use in the coming years. For the IPCC, however, there will then be no turning back. A hopeless situation.

19 responses to “IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained Scientists””

  1. oebele bruinsma

    It becomes almost a cliche: It is political “science” and it will not survive as most things in politics.

  2. Climate Change Lies Reach New Levels, Based On “Overheated” Climate Models – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Related: IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained … […]

  3. ledag

    This is sad.
    One has to be deaf dumb and blind to fail to perceive the similarities between this “Climate Science” and “Covid Science”. Neither is science in the regular, accepted sense of the word, and both are a projections of political interests that converge with economic interests, and a neurotic worldview that has morphed into an ideology.

    1. Sommer

      Brilliant comment! Thank you ledag.

      1. Tom Anderson

        I second that. The so-called dangers perfectly reflect H.L. Mencken’s note that: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

  4. pochas94

    Doctor Vahrenholt is always to be commended for his fearless defense of objective science.

  5. Gerald the Mole

    As always the working man will pay.

  6. IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained Scientists” – Watts Up With That?

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  7. IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained Scientists” - TIMES NEWS UK

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  8. IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained Scientists” |

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  9. IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained Scientists” – Watts Up With That? | Blue Anon News

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  10. IPCC “In A Hopeless Scenario”…”Stained Scientists” – Watts Up With That? – All My Daily News

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  11. rob

    CMIP6 solar particle forcing was left out of the models. They couldn’t reconcile paleo climate so of those that submitted (many chose not to) only those that purposely left out particle forcing and cosmic rays submitted. So basically its CMIP5 extended version minus known other solar forcings.

  12. IPCC “In A Hopeless Scenario”…”Stained Scientists” – Watts Up With That? – Daily News

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  13. IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: IPCC “In A Hopeless Situation”…”Stained Scientists” – Climate- Science.press

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  14. IPCC Enters “Into Thin Air”. German Scientists: | ajmarciniak

    […] From the NoTricksZone […]

  15. Ulric Lyons

    Friederike Otto writes false attribution studies which get used in climate litigation. Like with the very brief Saharan plumes in west Europe during summer 2019. The plumes are completely dependent on negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, and hence are predictably more common during centennial solar minima. There are several similar examples in daily CET values in the 1880-1890’s. I made this comment on a Copernicus ECMWF post on LinkedIn with supporting data, and they actually ‘liked’ the comment.

    The consensus of global circulation models give increasing positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions with rising CO2 forcing. That can only reduce Saharan plumes as the jet stream would be more zonal and northerly.


  16. SADOW: The Science Is Not On The Side Of Louisiana's Climate Alarmists

    […] rely heavily on worst cases favored by its authors, but not by climate science which reveals many models both for temperature and extreme weather badly flawed and skewed towards extremes. As in past reports, a detailed reading shows far less extreme scenarios more likely, but these […]

  17. James H. Shanley

    Good science of necessity relies on good data If a scientist relies on a fossil tree in the Gaspe to support a claim of global warming, he should have been called out by other scientists. It never happened. The record on CO2 levels is even worse. Given that O2 is necessary for land and sea life, and the O2 must come from CO2 and CO2 is produced by volcanic action, why has there been no mention of volcanic action contributing atmospheric levels of CO2?

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