IPCC’s Special Report Slammed By Eminent Climate Scientist
By Paul Homewood
The significance of this new GWPF report by Prof Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre at University College Dublin cannot really be overstated:
This is the press release:
London, 20 December: One of Europe’s most eminent climate scientists has documented the main scientific reasons why the recent UN climate summit failed to welcome the IPCC’s report on global warming of 1.5°C.
In a paper published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation Professor Ray Bates of University College Dublin explains the main reasons for the significant controversy about the latest IPCC report within the international community.
The IPCC’s Special Report on a Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) was released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in advance of the recent COP24 meeting in Katowice, Poland, but was not adopted by the meeting due to objections by a number of governments.
Professor Bates examines some key aspects of the SR1.5 report. He assesses if the IPCC report exhibits a level of scientific rigour commensurate with the scale of its extremely costly and highly disruptive recommendation that carbon emissions be reduced to zero by mid-century.
The paper concludes that such a level of scientific rigour is not present in the report. Specifically, SR1.5 is deficient in scientific rigour in the following respects:
● It departs from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report in conveying an increased sense of planetary emergency without giving rigorous scientific reasons for doing so.
● It fails to communicate to policymakers a considerable body of important observationally-based research evidence that has accumulated since the Fifth Assessment which reduces the sense of a looming emergency.
● It fails to communicate important information made public by climate modellers since the Fifth Assessment regarding the empirical tuning of models to achieve desired results.
The paper concludes that, in view of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being regarded by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.
“There is much recent observational and scientific evidence that the IPCC report has failed to include and which supports a more considered mitigation strategy than the extreme and unrealistic measures called for in the SR1.5 report,” said Prof Bates.
In the foreword, Dr. Edward Walsh, the Founding President of the University of Limerick and former chairman of Ireland’s National Council for Science, Technology and Innovation said:
“The importance of adherence to the highest scientific standards on the part of the IPCC in its periodic reports can hardly be overemphasised. Governments rely on the scientific objectivity of these reports to make crucial decisions related to the economies of their countries and the wellbeing of their people. Policymakers should carefully reflect on the significant deficiencies identified in the report before considering implementing its recommendations.”
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Should that be “cannot” really be overstated?
>
Yes, thanks
Now amended
Basically, it leaves out anything which shows it for the farce it is.
‘Hardly be overstated’ rather than ‘really be overstated’.
Correct!
That’s Professor Bates and Dr Walsh on the naughty list then!
He is worried about “rigour”?
That’s like being worried about the seating arrangement at the dinner table in a sinking ship.
There’s more than just rigour, sir.
Here is a short list for starters.
1. A statsitically flawed device called the TCRE
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/03/tcruparody/
2. Presentation of evidence that atmospheric CO2 conc is responsive to emissions
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/
3. Presentation of evidence that the rate of warming is responsive to the rate of emissions
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/
There’s more.
Correlation doesn’t prove causation.
Explain the 18 year pause in warming that was only ended by a big El Nino (a weather event) since when temperatures have been falling again all the while CO2 was increasing.
Explain the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period – all warmer than it currently is and all achieved without fossil fuels and a large population.
Gerry, conclusion from chaamjamal’s https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/:
“We conclude that atmospheric composition specifically in relation to the CO2 concentration is not responsive to the rate of fossil fuel emissions. This finding is a serious weakness in the theory of anthropogenic global warming by way of rising atmospheric CO2 attributed to the use of fossil fuels in the industrial economy; and of the “Climate Action proposition of the UN that reducing fossil fuel emissions will moderate the rate of warming by slowing the rise of atmospheric CO2. ”
More: https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/11/26/ecsparody/
Are the temperature graphs valid?
This is based on accepting the temperature charts that it is warmer now than other periods in the last century. Tony Heller makes a very strong case, using newspaper articles and reports by scientists that there was more Arctic melt in the first half of the 20th century. In addition by the good U.S. temperature record there were many more hot days in the 1930s. He shows by NASA/NOAA graphs over different periods how they consecutively cooled the past and warmed the present.
In the paper the Figure 6 graph shows cyclical ocean heating, blowing up Senator Whitehouse et. al. claim that “the heat (due to fossil fuel of course) went into the ocean.
I look forward to this report being highlighted by the BBC, Chan 4 and the Guardian !;)
Don’t hold your breath or you will turn blue. And with rumblings of a ‘Beast from the East’ coming soon we might all be turning a bit blue.
The Irish Times carried the report and added a IPCC contributor to make a fact free smear strong rebuttal.
“However, climatologist Prof Peter Thorne, who is based at Maynooth University and a lead author with the IPCC, rejected Prof Bates’s verdict, adding he “is in a very small minority of scientists”.
The Bates critique “is a cut-and-paste of long-debunked arguments from climate change deniers published by a highly questionable thinktank”, he said.
Rejecting Prof Bates’s criticism of the testimony given to the Citizens’ Assembly, he said all of it was “consistent with the broad scientific consensus that climate change is unequivocal, that we are responsible, and that our choices before us matter”.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/irish-scientist-questions-warnings-on-climate-change-1.3738727?mode=amp
Funny stuff.
I am reminded that Oliver Heaviside, the polymathic genius and all-round nut, was once told that everybody in the Royal Society thought he was a disgrace to it; at which he simply replied “Delighted to hear it!”
You can rest assured that any IPCC report will, entirely incidentally I’m sure, call for it’s continued existence and funding.
nothing to do with climate, all politics
Reblogged this on 4TimesAYear's Blog.
Having watched with increasing disgust the ever-increasing climate alarmism of the Irish media over the past fifteen years or so readers of this blog should know that the direct rebuke of the well-regarded Professor Walsh to the IPCC has not received even one mention on the panoply of current affairs and news programmes in Ireland in the last four weeks. Ray Bates has been regularly traduced by the array of enviro attack dogs which regularly contribute to media programmes and where all journalists, even veteran presenters who would have been agnostic regarding climate alarmism in the past, facilitate the eco industry’s mania about how the climate is worsening.