Skip to content

The IPCC Summary For Policymakers

August 10, 2021

By Paul Homewood



h/t Ian Cunningham




If we ignore all of the alarmist rhetoric in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, the real nitty gritty lies in these four sections:


1) Extreme Rainfall




In fact there are only two areas with sufficient data:

a) Central North America

It is certainly true that rainfall has increased there during recent decades, but that is in comparison with the devastating droughts which used to affect the region up to the 1960s.

In other words, heavy rainfall there has been greatly beneficial.


b) Northern Europe (ie Scandinavia)

Where I strongly suspect it would make any real difference!

As for floods, this is what the as yet unpublished Full Report has to say:



So, some areas are experiencing more floods, and others less!


 2) Droughts




Again, there are just two areas with sufficient data:

a) West North America

Since the mid 20thC, rainfall appears to have declined, but since the start of records in 1895, there is actually a slightly increasing trend in precipitation:


b) Mediterranean

This appears to be the only region where there is any confidence of a long term trend, and only medium confidence at that.

What is apparent is that the widespread drought shown in this section is at odds with the increased precipitation in the first section. It is also plainly nonsense to claim that drought is increasing in India, for instance, where we know monsoon rainfall has increased significantly since the disastrous droughts of the 1960s and 70s.

3) Tropical Cyclones


The strengthening of hurricanes in the last four decades is an effect of the AMO, as NOAA explain:


As the IPCC admit, they cannot find any longer term trends. Equally there is no actual evidence to back up claims of the heavier rainfall, which attribution studies allege is happening.

4) Sea Level Rise




I think the IPCC’s own chart highlights what a nonsense their projections are!




The reality is that our weather is no worse now than it was 150 years ago. Indeed I would strongly suggest that governments all around the world would be terrified if they were told we were going back to the climate Little Ice Age.

Think I’m kidding? This was exactly scientists thought was going to happen during the global cooldown in the 1970s, and governments were genuinely alarmed.

All that is left in the IPCC report is a host of highly subjective projections of what might happen in the future.

  1. Joe Public permalink
    August 10, 2021 11:46 am

    Thanks for your analyses with supporting evidence, Paul

    Yesterday, Roger Pielke Jr fired off his initial comments in this thread:

  2. Jack Broughton permalink
    August 10, 2021 11:50 am

    As you note the report ignores history except where it suits. The MWP and LIA are only mentioned twice, (apart from many references that are not used) and that is to try to discount them as not fully measured (obviously true, but many historical records do exist).

    The influence of clouds remains the biggest issue of difficulty for the modellers and many attempts are made to justify their assumptions.

    Some of the forward projections are beyond sense, these models cannot predict next year, but they claim to know what the climate will be like in 300 years time! 3949 pages of semi-technical, hypothetical model based, junk-science is my conclusion.

    Wadders will be pleased to find that the Arctic will be ice-free somewhere between 2050 and 2100 …… maybe: he was close!

  3. Lez permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:02 pm

    Slightly off topic, I’m afraid. But is this a taste of things to come?

  4. Harry Passfield permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:03 pm

    “…and likely human-induced climate change is the main driver” (their italics)

    So, it’s as likely or not. ‘Likely’ doesn’t seem to me a ‘sciency’ word; not sufficient to allow the Doc to carve you up because he thinks there’s a likelihood you have brain cancer (when in truth, you just needed new specs).

    • Broadlands permalink
      August 10, 2021 12:51 pm

      “Human-induced climate change”, almost by definition, is the increase in atmospheric CO2, all of which is assumed to be from the oxidation of carbon by humans since pre-industrial time. (likely high confidence). That’s an increase of 150%. The increase in the global mean temperature anomaly is only 6%. Climate emergency??

  5. TrevorC permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:03 pm

    Isn’t the sea level graph showing the imminent rapid increase – all low lying land underwater in 10/15 years time – the same one as we saw in 1990 and every year since? Except the rapid increase always starts ‘tomorrow’. Meanwhile sea level is still increasing at 3mm a year, as it has done for centuries.

    • Hugh Sharman permalink
      August 10, 2021 12:40 pm


    • Harry Davidson permalink
      August 10, 2021 1:11 pm

      The 3mm pa is from the NASA satellite measurements of mid ocean sea levels, made using instrumentation with accuracy 70mm. There is a word for data like that, and it’s not polite. Coastal stations come out at 1.8mm and they have far better accuracy instruments. I’ll go coastal.

    • John Peter permalink
      August 10, 2021 4:41 pm

      Do you mean 2mm until they Mann’d 3mm on using satellies instead of tide gauges?

  6. john cheshire permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:23 pm

    With reference to the human caused climate change, how much of it is being caused by Solar Radiation Management and HAARP activities?
    Maybe the “Scientists” should stop experimenting with the weather and concentrate their efforts on something more beneficial to people.

  7. Cheshire Red permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:25 pm

    Obviously this report is hysterical rhetoric. Its main purpose isn’t to accurately and dispassionately report on global climate trends, it’s to scare the public witless and justify substantial political interference.

    Nothing our political ‘leaders’ can do will change a damn thing about our weather, let alone the climate.

  8. Vernon E permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:42 pm

    Today’s Telegraph editorial refers to carbon dioxide as a pollutant. There’s no hope is there.

    • Donteachin permalink
      August 10, 2021 1:01 pm

      Hear hear, saw that. The editor is an arty farty type – doesn’t know the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide and has he told the plants we are trying to eliminate their food!!

  9. Eddy Barrows permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:49 pm

    Every few years the IPCC produces a report but they have a serious problem which is that there will be in the report statistics from honest scientists which don’t fit their dogma and which they certainly don’t want any politician to see.
    To overcome this they produce a report so long that almost no one will bother to read it and then provide their summary for policy makers to hoodwink the worldwide political elite.

    • bobn permalink
      August 10, 2021 1:54 pm

      Eddy, you’ll find most of the good science has mysteriously not been included anywhere. I bet the reports by Willie Soon dont appear, and probably not Roger Pielke either.

      • Eddy Barrows permalink
        August 10, 2021 4:14 pm

        Thanks.bobn for your reply and you are probably correct but is it perhaps reasonable to assume that if those behind this twisted report really had a shred of genuine conviction in the veracity of what they write they would have no need for the never ending deceit.

      • Gerry, England permalink
        August 10, 2021 4:15 pm

        I think roger has already indicated as much as his co-authored paper on tropical cyclones is ignored.

      • Dave Andrews permalink
        August 10, 2021 5:11 pm

        WUWT has a post by Roger Pielke which has some interesting things to say about the scenarios of WG1 in AR6

  10. Mark permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:58 pm

    Thanks Paul, great analysis. I’m old enough to remember to scare stories about global cooling in the 70’s and take all of this alarmist rhetoric with a high degree of scepticism. When it comes to trends, there has been much talk about scientists cherry picking data which suits their studies. The climategate (University of East Anglia server hack) in 2009 showed just how devious many of these scientists are. It wouldn’t surprise me if this sort of thing goes on all over the world.

  11. dennisambler permalink
    August 10, 2021 12:59 pm

    Event Attribution is the new kid in town and they claim with without a blush that events can be directly attributed to anthropogenic CO2, or more commonly in the media, “caused by climate change” with the implication that climate changes only because of humans.

    Myles Allen at Oxford has long been an ardent proponent and Peter Stott of the Met Office has it in his job title:
    “Professor Peter Stott is a Science Fellow in Climate Attribution. He is an expert in the attribution of climate change to anthropogenic and natural causes.” If attribution is your job, then that is what you will do, no attribution, no job.

    Jamal Munshi says the only way this can be done is by circular reasoning, using a model to produce a result which is then taken as a fact and used in the next model:
    “A literature review shows that the circular reasoning fallacy is common in climate change research. It is facilitated by confirmation bias and by activism such that the prior conviction of researchers is subsumed into the methodology.

    Example research papers on the impact of fossil fuel emissions on tropical cyclones, on sea level rise, and on the carbon cycle demonstrate that the conclusions drawn by researchers about their anthropogenic cause derive from circular reasoning.

    In biased research of this kind, researchers do not objectively seek the truth, whatever it may turn out to be, but rather seek to prove the truth of what they already know to be true or what needs to be true to support activism for a noble cause.”

  12. Broadlands permalink
    August 10, 2021 1:05 pm

    Please try to remember that for the contiguous US 48 states, the replacement for the U.S. Weather Bureau is NOAA. NOAA’s NCDC have systematically (and seasonally) lowered almost all of the early monthly records. Adjusted them downwards, from 1921 at least through 1940. That process is the opposite of what someone might want to do to cancel the UHI effect. The conclusion one can draw is that there is low confidence in any of the IPCC’s temperature data for that part of North America.

    • Harry Davidson permalink
      August 10, 2021 1:20 pm

      The Aussie BoM has done exactly the same, and
      1. Refuses to answer questions on why individual stations have been lowered, or look at record proving they are valid.
      2. Will not publish their algorithms for this lowering.
      3. When asked in the Senate about them said they would not be revealed because the BoM owned the IPR and would not publish them.
      4. Tried to prevent a Senator in the Senate from referring to non-homogenized data picked up from the way back machine on the grounds the copyright was owned by the Govt. of Australia. To which the Senator gave a very brusque response about who in the room represented the Govt. of Australia, and he didn’t think it was the head of the BoM.
      Once a ‘science’ becomes dominated by politics and secrecy, the science is all gone.
      Albert Einstein: If you mix politics and science 50:50, you get 100% politics.

      • Graeme No.3 permalink
        August 10, 2021 10:00 pm

        And an independent crowd-based investigation found the 48% of official weather stations did NOT meet official BOM requirements.
        My local BOM ‘weather station’ is about 3 miles away but on another planet. Even people who care nothing about “the climate” are openly expressing derision about their forecasts. They are so bad that the forecast on the evening TV news doesn’t come with the actual temperatures rather those from about 15 miles away and higher elevation.

  13. johnbillscott permalink
    August 10, 2021 1:12 pm

    Even with all the expensive super computers we cannot get a good forecast for next week never mind next year and beyond. One thing that destroys climate prognostications is choosing a starting point for establishing any trend. There are many historical data sets which have been ignored even though they have been compromised due adjustments by the climate guys once respected organization’s (Essexgate, NASA, Goddard, Met Office, NOAA, IMO)

    It has been overcast and humid these last two days so by trending analysis I would guess we are in for an overcast week.

  14. Joe Public permalink
    August 10, 2021 1:38 pm

    Remember all the anti-fracking scare stories about atmospheric methane?

    Chapter 6: Short-lived climate forcers:

    “There is no significant trend in the global mean tropospheric concentration of hydroxyl (OH) radical – the main sink for many SLCFs, including methane (CH4) – from 1850 up to around 1980 (low confidence) but OH has remained stable or exhibited a positive trend since the 1980s (medium confidence). Global OH cannot be measured directly and is inferred from Earth system and climate chemistry models (ESMs, CCMs) constrained by emissions and from observationally constrained inversion methods. There is conflicting information from these methods for the 1980–2014 period. ESMs and CCMs concur on a positive trend since 1980 (about a 9% increase over 1980–2014) and there is medium confidence that this trend is mainly driven by increases in global anthropogenic nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and decreases in anthropogenic CO emissions. The observation-constrained methods suggest either positive trends or the absence of trends based on limited evidence and medium agreement. Future changes in global OH, in response to SLCF emissions and climate change, will depend on the interplay between multiple offsetting drivers of OH. {6.3.6 and Cross-Chapter Box 5.1}”

    Click to access IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_06.pdf

  15. tom0mason permalink
    August 10, 2021 2:12 pm

    Nothing but SCARE and ALARM through highlighting the last 3-5years of local and regional weather changes as evidence of climate change. A load of codswallop!
    But the UK’s lily-livered government officials will swallow it hook line and sinker, much to the detriment of the vast majority of the population.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      August 10, 2021 2:27 pm

      I guess that when the main Gov depts are staffed with acolytes of greenpeace the ‘hook, line and sinker’ for them is just like prime fillet – or tofu-burgers – to them.
      Also, we mustn’t lose sight of the well-known Cameron-Deben effect with it’s promises of untold riches for those prepared to sell their country down the Yangtze.

  16. August 10, 2021 3:23 pm

    Just for reference, there is a record of genuine atmospheric charts here:

    Historical Charts

    They can be a bit “eye-boggling” if you are not used to reading these sort of charts, but they do show the actual conditions rather than speculation. The bit to observe is the 552hpa isobar, this is what is often referred to as the “Steering Level” and tends to be the line along which the jet streams form. As most good “met guys” will say, this is the guiding line for the surface level low pressure zones. If it is well to the north for any time of the year, places like Europe will be in the sub tropical warm high pressure zone; if to the south, the stormy, cold, wet zone. If it gets stuck – as at present – weather patterns will become repetitive so drought will dominate for some, floods for others.
    Recording the position at the same date and time every year gives a good indication of which way the climate is going. As can be seen, from the late 1800’s to the 1900’s warming was definitely there (but we know that !). Since then there has been a definite tendency to reverse and cold can be seen to be increasing.
    As an aside, it is said that ” …Arctic temperatures have been increasing more rapidly than other areas…” ; this arises when low pressure zones are unusually far south, scooping up tropical air and throwing it northwards, as distinct from air from more moderate zones as would otherwise be the case. The observations in those temperature readings may be quite correct, the reasoning isn’t.

  17. Chuck permalink
    August 10, 2021 3:30 pm

    A timely assessment of the global warming that has really been observed:

    El Nino: 3
    CO2: 0

  18. Bob Webster permalink
    August 10, 2021 4:04 pm

    In short, the “Summary” is a find summation of just how little the IPCC understands/knows about climate salted with dire warnings/projections of future climate crises.

    And these people presume to investigate climate CHANGE?

    Blind leading the blind.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      August 10, 2021 4:18 pm

      No, HUMAN induced climate change is what they ‘investigate’ in order to support the UNFCCC.

  19. permalink
    August 10, 2021 6:17 pm

    I remember well as a former Scottish Wildlife Trust regional appointed gaffer just how well gov was in on this rort. The scam was denoted as ‘Climate Action’, and we’d go out in Transit vans doing ‘conservation work’ – good stuff, generally, when I got a HO phone call stating I’d an ‘interview’ for my position and should attend next day at Cramond Tower, HQ,

    The opulence inside was staggering. A ‘charity’, never, but a political vehicle absolutely.

  20. cookers52 permalink
    August 11, 2021 10:53 am

    But politicians always base policy on subjective projections of the future, policies fail all the time.

    We have voted for Boris, he will slavishly follow fashion, and we will be in a mess.

  21. dennisambler permalink
    August 11, 2021 12:31 pm

    I note the number of pages is 3949, so guaranteed that it will be widely read by politicians who will make knee jerk policies because of it.

  22. Douglas Brodie permalink
    August 11, 2021 12:44 pm

    I note that the AR6 Summary Report for Policymakers makes no reference to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the cyclical climate phenomenon which could have the greatest effect on the global climate over the next 30 years, in the form of global cooling.

    Perhaps to cover themselves, they make reference to [ref 37] “ENSO, Pacific and Atlantic Multidecadal variability” with the hidden-meaning statement that:

    C.1.2 Projected human caused changes in mean climate and climatic impact-drivers (CIDs) [ref 36], including extremes, will be either amplified or attenuated by internal variability [ref 37]

  23. Athelstan permalink
    August 11, 2021 2:47 pm

    Honestly, hands up anyone on here who was surprised by the ipcc regurgitating the same old claptrap and with ever more hyperbolic claims. Utter rubbish and all based on models, stewed old scare stories.

    As UK taxpayers, we pay for this nescient cow wallop, since 1992: it’s way past time to put the sock into the sock puppets and bash it, until all socks have ceased movement.

  24. ronaldsteinptsadvancecom permalink
    August 12, 2021 2:23 pm

    The “hockey stick” curve obscures Earth’s CO2 history. Dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 250 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today.
    Summary: Feeding the world’s hungry ranks among the greatest difficulties humankind has experienced. Greenhouse growers in America and China, are enhancing plant growth as they intentionally increase CO2 levels to around 1,500 ppm, or 4 times today’s CO2 levels to boost plant yield by 25 to 65 percent for the plants they are growing, to produce greater amounts of vegetables and crops for humanity.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: