Skip to content

The UN IPCC buries two millennia of fluctuating temperatures

August 16, 2021

By Paul Homewood



By Alan Moran

Probably nobody in the world has read the 3,949 pages of the latest IPCC report.  But many people have studied the 41 page politically determined, Summary for Policymakers.   Aside from rhetorical conjecture about increased human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide bringing more storms, fires and pestilence, the following killer dual chart is placed at the outset of the Summary

If this is accurate, it means human actions have changed the climate by at least the 1.1°C temperature increase estimated by the world’s most distinguished and celebrated atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen.  Lindzen’s fastidious reliance on science, positions him as estimating that a (human-induced) doubling of atmospheric CO2 will mean a 1.1°C global temperature rise. On his estimates, almost all of this has already occurred and it will not markedly shift the climate’s hospitability to man, beast and flora. 

That there has been 1.1°C of warming since 1850 is not especially controversial.  There is some disagreement about the degree to which it reflects the “recovery” from the mini-Ice Age (when there were Ice Fairs on the Thames among other events not seen today) and the effects of increased CO2 emissions. 

The controversial part is the removal of temperature oscillations commonly thought to have occurred over the course of the past 2,000 years. These include warming that was known to have occurred in Roman times and again in the tenth century when the Vikings colonised Greenland until 1250, and the cold period 1400-1700.  Such events are downgraded as being either exaggerated or localised.

The earlier iteration of the IPCC 2021 picture was the notorious hockey stick fabrication by Michael Mann.  Mann cherry-picked data from tree rings and spliced together incongruent data sources, and reported his “findings” in a 1998 paper. Like the latest IPCC report, this showed a flat temperature trend until the 20th Century, then a sharp rise. 

The IPCC in its 2001 report used Mann’s graph as its poster child to substantiate human-induced global warming.  In the years after 2001 the IPCC quietly dropped Mann’s “hockey stick”.  Its discreditating was completed by 2009 release of confidential emails (dubbed “Climategate”), which showed Michael Mann as the conductor of other climate scientists seeing a need to eradicate the “medieval warming period” in order to make the case that the modern warming is unique.

The chicanery under which this strategy was conducted resulted in legal cases.  Canadian scientist Tim Ball called Mann a fraud, Mann sued and the subsequent court case lasted a decade before finding against Mann. (Mann has managed to string out another case that he brought against Mark Steyn for even longer). 

But in the 2021 climate review the “hockey stick” is again the main feature. 

Climate scientists have a vested interest in discovering human-induced adverse spillovers from market based economic activity. The global warming agenda, cultivated over the past 30 years, has catapulted scientists from white-coated boffins who were decidedly low on the public sector pecking order, to the arbiters of national policies with all the perks and funding this entails. 

Criticism has followed the latest report.  Alex Epstein, who heads the US Center for Industrial Progress, tweeted, “The IPCC is not primarily a scientific organization, it is primarily a religious and political organization that manipulates science–including the work of many good scientists–to achieve the anti-human goal of eliminating human impact on nature”.

The picture offered by the new IPCC report, if accurate, turns Michael Mann’s 1998 assessment into a serendipitous revelation. It means that the IPCC has discovered the temperature record is aligned with (or, according to its critics, been aligned to) the CO2 record.

If new data confirms the “hockey stick”, the policy implications are consequential should the data’s impact be considerable.  Successive IPCC reports, while declaring greater certainty about warming, have progressively downgraded and hedged bets on its extent and adverse impacts.

If the implications are more serious, the costs of remedying them need to be assessed against the expenses entailed. 

While there is no end of experts assuring us of ample carbon-light energy sources that are available or about to be proven economic, the costs always turn out to be excessive.  Warmistas themselves loudly tout the low costs of hydrocarbon alternatives but demonstrate a lack of confidence in their claims by continuing to call for more subsidies.  Australia spends (but refuses to quantify) over $7 billion a year on subsidising renewables. The UK spends £10 billion annually (which the government does document) and this week Boris Johnson had to back down on a new regulatory proposal to reduce emissions by requiring the replacement of gas boilers with more expensive heat pumps.  

Notwithstanding the costs being incurred in emission restraint by developed nations, as The Australian’s Graham Lloyd says, “emissions continue to grow as increases from developing economies swamp cuts from the developed world”.  He also points out, “The developed world is proposing deep cuts to emissions but at the same time outsourcing industrial production of the things needed to make the transition to China, including the greenhouse gas emissions involved.”

Paying lip service to the warmistas, China, far and away the greatest source of emissions offers only a mirage of future reductions; India, the fourth largest source of emissions, even refuses to do this. 


Alan Moran is the author of the Australian chapter in the forthcoming global compendium Local Electricity Markets edited by Tiago Pinto and published by Elsevier

  1. Adam Gallon permalink
    August 16, 2021 9:40 am
    Steve McIntyre’s taken a look at this “New” Hockey Stick.
    Needless to say, it proves to be as flawed as the original one.

    • August 16, 2021 10:02 am

      And this highlights what’s worse than it being flawed, and that is the refusal to acknowledge it.

  2. August 16, 2021 9:59 am

    the parameters for data for the IPCC report all seem to be recent ranging from 1979 for ice at both poles, 1950 for rainfall and drought with the longest being 1850 for temperatures.

    Of course if they had gone prior to this they would have seen the 1880 benchmark for rising temperatures is a staging post not a starting post with the cold climate around that time being much warmer from the early 1700’s-in other words temperatures have been generally rising for over 300 years. surely we should be greatful to be warmer than the little ice age, not complaining?

    as we see with many of these recent records, if you look beyond say 1950 you can see rainfall, droughts, tornadoes etc going up and down like a yo yo and the modern era starts to look quite benign besides the catastrophic weather events of the past

  3. August 16, 2021 10:22 am

    Have they taken account of changing solar impacts-it seems not.
    Therefore, GIGO must have plagued their calculations.
    Are there any means of including the sun’s varying influence on global climate and the planet’s warming/cooling?
    If not, their findings and climate projections are devoid of reality.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      August 16, 2021 1:10 pm

      But if your starting point is that the sun plays only a small part in the earth’s climate (and I feel an idiot simply for admitting that the concept might even exist!) then all else follows. As in when you have been hypnotised into believing that that screwdriver in your hand is actually a hammer then every screw becomes a nail!

      • Chaswarnertoo permalink
        August 16, 2021 2:31 pm

        Um. Small. We would not be here without that yellow variable star.

      • europeanonion permalink
        August 16, 2021 5:47 pm

        The Solar system has a 250 million year orbit within the Milky Way. Goodness knows what we have to pass through and come under the influence of in that time. I still think nuclear war is a far bigger problem requiring our full attention. All things associated with that monster are known and true. Global Warming, by comparison, is a thin old man with a beard attired in two sandwich boards.

  4. Barrie Emmett permalink
    August 16, 2021 11:11 am

    Michael. The IPCC is just like the WHO, unreliable, agenda driven and morally bankrupt. I don’t believe anything either of them publish. Yesterday the Sunday Times published an interesting article on the Chinese influence within and without the WHO. Absolutely shocking that with both SARS and COVID-19 the viruses originated in a country which then sought to obstruct and confuse any investigation. All eyes on the unfolding tragedy in both Afghanistan and on a lesser scale the most unfortunate Haiti. What a world and all the politicians on holiday. Aargh. Barrie

    Sent from my iPad


    • Harry Passfield permalink
      August 16, 2021 11:30 am

      Perhaps Biden is hoping that the insurgents – that’s the Taliban, not Trump’s supporters (easy to see the difference!) all go down with Covid. Problem solved.

  5. Jack Broughton permalink
    August 16, 2021 11:26 am

    The IPCC report in Chapter 2, table 1 footnotes makes one of its few references to the LIA and MWP as justifications for ignoring them, (along with “better” proxy data). No real justification of their claims is given but this “justifies” the resurrection of the “Hockey-stick” to them:-
    “*** The terms “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” (or “Medieval Climate Anomaly”) are not used extensively in this report because the timing of these episodes is not well defined and varies regionally. Since AR5, new proxy records have improved climate reconstructions at decadal scale across the last millennium. Therefore, the dates of events within these two roughly defined periods are stated explicitly when possible.”

    • Cheshire Red permalink
      August 16, 2021 2:20 pm

      ‘Since AR5 we’ve made up new data that’s more favourable to our climate objectives.
      It removes the MWP and LIA fluctuations, making our job of selling the manufactured ‘climate crisis’ to a sceptical public a whole lot easier’.

  6. Harry Davidson permalink
    August 16, 2021 11:32 am

    They have probably picked up the Aussie BoM trick. When temperature sensors record less than expected, they are declared to be ‘offline’, because they obviously aren’t working correctly. ‘Correct’ values are then homogenized in.

  7. Luc Ozade permalink
    August 16, 2021 11:46 am

    What I don’t understand is this: How does the IPCC and contributors to the above-mentioned Summary for Policymakers think they can get away with, what seems to me to be, such blatant misrepresentation of the facts (as acknowledged by followers of this subject)?

    What I am referring to is the depiction of the increase in CO2 in the graphics between 1850 and present and they put this ALL down to the activities of mankind – about 130ppm, when everybody knows, or should do, that mankind produces only approx. 3% of the total amount of CO2 emissions, the rest of which are purely natural (even if that had anything to do with any ‘temperature control knob’!).

  8. Gerry, England permalink
    August 16, 2021 12:20 pm

    There have been well over 100 papers published that show the Medieval Warm Period was global and not as the warmists claim limited to the Northern hemisphere. All the warm periods are a problem for the warmists since the anecdotal evidence says that it was warmer than today as they can offer no explanation as to why they occurred and why we should be worried by the current limited warming.

  9. Stonyground permalink
    August 16, 2021 12:28 pm

    As I mentioned in an earlier thread, the lying is just blatant now, they aren’t even pretending to be telling the truth. Everyone knows that the Hockey Stick has been utterly discredited but it doesn’t seem to matter any more, nobody in the MSM is calling them out on their lies so why not dust off the graph and start using it again?

  10. europeanonion permalink
    August 16, 2021 12:28 pm

    In the past when nations have threatened mankind there has been stiff opposition, as nations came together to ensure the continuance of democracy and to oppose the seeming indifference of rampant nations to the continuance of dignified life.

    So what happens over Global Warming when India and China invade our territory with their industrial outpourings? Are we about to take up arms against such a threat and such an indifference? Never, the threat to these people of us sending an ecological gunboat is fantasy.

    Are we not looking at the awful cul-de-sac that Westerners have put themselves in and insist on continuing to press? The lack of industry and innovation and inevitable rise of nascent powers that may actually lead to domination and the grooming of international opinion in their favour.

    Fortunately for Britain we have the little red wall, which I am sure Moa would have been proud of. Back then, he goaded his population into building smelters in back gardens, driving people to promote their country through industry. Even though, some would have it, we are currently under existential threat from our activities the fact that they are also Indian and Chinese helping them toe mop-up our earning potential.

    This not too dissimilar to declaring unrestricted submarine warfare (just as effective at cutting off your supplies and imperilling your populations by being the sole provider and owning all the world’s most in-demand mineral stocks); but we will not fight them over this position. The best we seem to muster is the equivalent of building the Anderson Shelter and making a lame attempt at becoming self-supportive, shielded from these rampant and energetic nations by windmills and heat exchangers.

    The very essence of the discussion concerning democracy has never been moor interesting: If our one party state (as it stands now) can order all and sundry to ignore the capitalist way, ignore competition and self-volition, do exactly as they are told, spending their money as instructed, while a Communist State adopts consumerism, what philosophical response will be elicited from our leadership? If the Japanese war of raw materials and the German war of living space could induce belligerence, does the prospect of Mutually Assured eco Destruction (as our state would have it) not stir them to demands, threats and actions?

  11. Ray Sanders permalink
    August 16, 2021 12:45 pm

    What was it that Blair said (Eric that is not Tony) – “He who controls the past controls the future, he who controls the present controls the past” We have to wrest this control of past data away from these lying b@stards. Thankfully there are the printed and historical records.

    • StephenP permalink
      August 16, 2021 1:15 pm

      Many historical records are now being digitised and at risk of being adjusted or “lost”!?!

  12. cookers52 permalink
    August 16, 2021 3:13 pm

    I haven’t read the IPCC summary as I can’t be bothered.
    I only watch the mainstream Media News and they tell me that sea levels will rise by 2m and that the current temperature is unprecedented and wildfires are worse.

    All of these things the science tells me are just not true.

    However the climate modelling is one thing that I do not disagree with, as modelling is just modelling!

  13. Jordan permalink
    August 16, 2021 7:06 pm

    Related, but maybe slightly OT.
    The SPM says this: “A.2.2 Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years (high confidence).”
    I don’t believe this is supportable. Marcott et al (2013) tells us the low resolution proxy record cannot resolve variability at much below 1000 year intervals. This means the temperature proxy series cannot resolve anything at 50 year intervals.
    I’ve had a look in the (difficult-to-read) draft WG1 document and I cannot see where the above claim is backed-up. This should be quite an easy target to add to challenges to the SPM narrative.

  14. Stuart Hamish permalink
    August 16, 2021 11:55 pm

    Regarding the the IPCC Summary for Policymakers chart Figure [ a] ” Change in global surface temperature [ decadal average ] as reconstructed [ 1-2000] and observed [ 1850 – 2020 ] , the sidebar annotation ” Warmest multi century period in more than 100 ,000 years ” is a deception . I can see why the IPCC choice of temperature reconstruction is truncated to the last 2000 years and not 10 000 .

    The Holocene Optimum period 7500 – 6000 BP was on average 0.8 – 0.7 warmer than the modern warm era 1850 – 2020 excluding the instrumental data record . It is important to remember that ” the temperature proxies we have for the early Holocene don’t have the fine resolution to detect such short term fluctuations …..comparison of current temperatures calculated over the last couple of decades cannot be meaningfully compared with centuries long trends ” [ Homewood , The Holocene Climate Optimum ,August 19 ,2018 ]

    However if we examine the ” Comparison of Holocene global -mean temperature composites ‘ 12 k reconstruction based on 679 northern /southern hemisphere and mid latitude terrestrial and marine proxy locations in the 2020 Kaufman et al paper ensemble [ ” Holocene global mean surface temperature , a multi method reconstruction approach ‘ Nature , June 30 , 2020 ] it is evident the Holocene Optimum was considerably warmer over 15 centuries than the present. The grey segmented line ” All 12k methods , 5- 95th percentiles is the other salient temperature reconstruction of interest and the orange CPS [ Composite Plus Scale ] reconstruction .

  15. August 17, 2021 12:49 pm

    Trying to avoid logical contrivances, ideological idiocy and cultural bias so as to convey a compelling, objective understanding of what could be at least one root cause of the Global Predicament that continues to unfold without a sensible collective response from the human community. “People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.”
    –Ralph Waldo Emerson

    • Stuart Hamish permalink
      August 18, 2021 6:48 am

      :” If ever the human community is sensibly and meaningfully able to restrain the recent bacteria – like growth of human population numbers , limiting increases in total food production for human consumption will need to be a part of any program of action ”

      Tell us Steve Salmony , ” self proclaimed global citizen” and “psychologist ” is your misanthropic and dehumanizing perception of your fellow human beings as fecund ‘bacteria ” and fascination with constricting food production as a population control ,a confession of your character ? ……How do you manage to reconcile ” ideological idiocy ” with your brand of eco fascism and your psychology credentials with a belief in a mythical climate emergency for which there is no convincing empirical evidence ?

      One more question : why are psychologists , who should be more concerned with the replication crisis in their pseudoscientific profession , seemingly over represented in the Extinction Rebellion millenarian cult that demands the impossible deindustrialization
      target of net zero 2025 that would wreck modern countries and parliamentary democracy based on the peoples vote obey the totalitarian directives of a ‘Citizens Assembly ” ?

    • Stuart Broadhurst permalink
      August 20, 2021 5:58 am

      I find it telling that you should emphasize in your choice of R. W Emersons quote ‘opinion over empirical reasoning and fact . Then again you are an Extinction Rebellion cult aficionado and psychology’s [ and psychiatry’s] long disgraceful record of pseudoscience , faddishness, misdiagnosis , fraud and ideology over evidence should also be taken into account . You also compared your fellow human beings to fecund bacteria which is not unusual rhetoric in the radical environmentalist movement ..Concerning the UNFAO chart ” Global Hunger on the Rise ” it is completely discordant with the best available evidence that the prevalence of global hunger and undernourishment has decreased from 13 .4% of the global population at the beginning of this century to 8.8% in 2017.
      The proportion of undernourished people in Least Developed Countries , Low Income Food Deficit Countries and indeed globally has declined despite fluctuations in the trendlines since 1990. If it is your opinion we are in midst of a climate emergency then you would do well to examine and debate the overwhelming evidence compiled by Indur Goklany that no such crisis exists in objective reality.

      Interestingly I noticed there is a neat little clause in the DSMV’s definition of Delusional Disorder : “A delusion is a fixed false belief based on an inaccurate interpretation of an external reality despite evidence to the contrary . The belief is not congruent with ones culture or subculture ,and almost everyone else agrees it is false ” So the diagnostic definition incorporates cultural relativism and the Appeal to Consensus logical fallacy [ ” almost everyone else agrees it is false “] ….Therefore, if the psychiatrist Dr Allen Frances is of the absurd belief that Donald Trumps climate policies imperiled more human beings than Hitler Stalin and Mao and Americans were crazy for electing him , or an Extinction Rebellion groupie [ or UN apparatchik ] believes – after five decades of climate and ecological catastrophe predictions that have not materialized, that the world and human civilization is being engulfed by droughts floods hurricanes and wildfires that are in fact not worsening at all on historical timescales – those beliefs are technically not irrational and delusional because they are within the remit of ones culture or subculture ? Was that ridiculous terribly conceived definition decided by a panel or referendum and what does it suggest about their judgment ?

  16. Renee permalink
    August 19, 2021 9:10 pm

    This was pointed out over a year ago.

  17. Stuart Hamish permalink
    August 20, 2021 11:09 am

    Paul Homewood ,Joanne Nova has compiled a random series of ” divergent ” proxies in a chart herein that do not show unprecedented warming .Worth looking at


  1. Third try* | Green Ink

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: