(or How we learned to hide the lack of Warming and still scare the Dickens out of the World)
What is it? Wikipedia explains:
The Summary for policymakers (SPM) is a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 1 reports intended to aid policymakers. The form is approved line by line by governments. (Link)
“Approval” is the process used for IPCC Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries, in consultation with the scientists responsible for drafting the report. (link)
The SPM is a 36 page document and it is claimed to summarise 14 chapters of new not-yet-released material. Those 14 chapters weren’t boiled down to 36 pages by an aloof, rigidly logical mechanical device. Instead human beings were involved. 65 IPCC personnel out of hundreds were chosen to perform this task. Favouritism, bias, conflict-of-interest and political calculation could all have played a role in their selection.
But the Summary was merely drafted by these 65 people. When they finished their task back in June, their document was 31 pages long and contained 15,589 words. At the press conference on Friday, the IPCC presented to the world a new, improved version of the summary. It is five pages longer, but contains 700 fewer words. (link – Donna Laframboise) (See also iisd reporting services)
Approved Line by Line?
The Summary for Policymakers, as mentioned above, is subject to the approval of representatives of participating governments in a meeting.
At the meeting, one sentence after another is projected onto large screens. Diplomats, bureaucrats, and politicians from the dozens of UN nations haggle, horse trade and negotiate. Eventually, phrasing that everyone can live with is agreed upon. Then they move on to the next sentence. (Source)
What do independent scientists say about the document?
Bob Tisdale: (LINK)
….the vast majority of the scientific research reflected in that document was funded by governments. As a result, the IPCC Summary for Policymakers presents only research efforts that adhere to the agendas of the political entities that financed it.Simply stated, the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers was bought and paid for by politicians for political purposes.Climatologist Judith Curry: (former warmist) (link)
'How did they miss the fact that the pause is the most important issue in the public debate on climate science, for well over a year now?'
“The IPCC needs to get out of the way so that scientists and policy makers can better do their jobs,” Curry writes in her blog. “We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible.”
Roger Pielke Jr. on IPCC: '
There is a big difference between saying 'we don’t know, emerging area of research” and 'nothing to see here, move along.
‘Increasing hurricanes? No. Floods? No. Drought? No. Tornadoes/thunderstorms? No. Extreme weather meme now firmly zombie science’ (link)
Climate Scientist Dr. John Christy:
73 UN Climate Models Wrong, No Global Warming in 17 Years.
Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf) - (Link)One problem with that conclusion, according to some climate scientists, is that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has limited the hiatus to 10-15 years. Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, believes the pause will last much longer than that. He points to repeated periods of warming and cooling in the 20th century.
“Each one of those regimes lasts about 30 years … I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling,” (LINK)
“It makes no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased,” Dr. Curry was also quoted as saying in news reports. “This is incomprehensible to me; the IPCC projections are overconfident, especially given the report’s admitted areas of doubt. The consensus-seeking process used by the IPCC creates and amplifies biases in the science. It should be abandoned in favor of a more traditional review that presents arguments for and against — which would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.”
Meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who served as a lead author with the third IPCC report, for example, told Climate Depot that he thought the UN body had “truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence” with its latest assessment. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,” added Dr. Lindzen, who has published hundreds of scientific papers.
Climate experts Patrick Michaels and Paul "Chip" Knappenberger with the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute were calling for the UN report to be “torn up and tossed out” along with “the entire IPCC process which produced such a misleading (and potentially dangerous) document.”
Dr. Benny Peiser with the Global Warming Policy Foundation had harsh words for the latest IPCC report, too, saying it was based on flawed models that cannot accurately predict future temperature changes. “The IPCC are gambling that temperatures will rise soon. My own reading of the report is it's more a political message than a scientific one,” he explained. “They ignore the fact that their models have a problem, and they are unable to say when the temperature will start rising again. That is a gamble.”
Climatologist Dr. Roy Warren Spencer, who serves as principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and formerly worked as a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, was equally critical of the latest UN report. Probably the “biggest omission of the report,” he said, “continues to be the almost total neglect of natural forcing mechanisms of climate change.” Overall, Dr. Spencer said the IPCC summary report released last week “reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.”
Professor Myles Allen with Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, who has worked extensively with the IPCC but has blasted many of the anti-carbon schemes pursued by governments as a waste of time and money, said the AR5 ought to be the final UN IPCC report. “Its cumbersome production process misrepresents how science works,” he was quoted as saying. “The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in the future.”
H/t Marc Morano's Climate Depot