WMO Climate Alarmist Dossier Released Ahead of UN Summit Is Further Sexed Up By The BBC.



Just in time for the UN climate summit in New York attended by Saint Greta of Aspergers herself, no less, and to order by the UN, the WMO has released its state of the climate 2015-19 high level synthesis report entitled, no doubt in deference to the Pig-Tailed One, United in Science.

It’s the usual bullet point summary of supposed ‘alarming’ man-made climate change impacts which it maintains have accelerated over the ‘five year’ period 2015-19 – even though the report only covers up to July 2019. Here’s the graphical summary of the report’s findings:


You get the picture. If we don’t decarbonise our transport, economies, industries, energy generation and personal lifestyles by 5pm next Thursday, our children and all of Greta’s little climate strikers will be dead from climate change by 2050. It’s all so nauseatingly familiar and so nauseatingly science-lite and evidence-lite that we need not go into it here.

But of course, the BBC has grabbed ahold of it and, with its usual licence to lie, exaggerate, scaremonger and hype with gay abandon, produced this article written by Matt McGrath. Matt starts off running:

The signs and impacts of global heating are speeding up, the latest science on climate change, published ahead of key UN talks in New York, says.

The data, compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), says the five-year period from 2014 to 2019 is the warmest on record.

Sea-level rise has accelerated significantly over the same period, as CO2 emissions have hit new highs.

The WMO says carbon-cutting efforts have to be intensified immediately.

OMG, OMG, OMG! So far, so accurate (at least as far as reporting what the WMO/UN propaganda report reports). Except it’s not “the five year period from 2014 to 2019”, it’s the four and a half year period from 2015 to July 2019. Then Matt sprints ahead of himself and goes full on Dodgy Dossier:

Recognising that global temperatures have risen by 1.1 degrees C since 1850, the paper notes they have gone up by 0.2C between 2011 and 2015.

This is as a result of burgeoning emissions of carbon, with the amount of the gas going into the atmosphere between 2015 and 2019 growing by 20% compared with the previous five years.

Er, no. The Report says nothing of the sort. You sexed it up Matt. What it does say is:

The average global temperature for 2015–2019 is on track to be the warmest of any equivalent period on record. It is currently estimated to be 1.1°Celsius (± 0.1 °C) above pre-industrial (1850–1900) times and 0.20 ±0.08 °C warmer than the global average temperature for 2011–2015.

So, 2015-19 is only on track to be the warmest 5 year period on record and warmer than 2011-2015 by 0.2C. Global temperature was not claimed to have increased by 0.2C from 2011 to 2015. Read the flipping report instead of skimming through it! The report also says nothing about the cause of this rather sudden jump in temperature, only going into detail about the increase in atmospheric GHGs coincident with the increase in temperature, plus the continuation of industrial emissions. All we are told by the WMO info site is that:

An accompanying WMO report on greenhouse gas concentrations shows that 2015-2019 has seen a continued increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and other key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to new records, with CO2 growth rates nearly 20% higher than the previous five years.

Note that the 20% growth rate is not anthropogenic emissions, as implied by McGrath, but atmospheric CO2 growth rates. Big difference. McGrath compounds his disinformation by claiming that the cause of the 0.2°C spike in global temperatures is anthropogenic GHG emissions. This is not a claim made by the report.

So what did cause the sudden jump in temperatures that the BBC would have its readers think was the result of our indulgent western lifestyles and our scandalous reliance upon ‘dirty’ industries? It’s almost certain that 2015-19 was warmer than 2011-2015 because of ENSO activity, namely the very strong 2010-12 La Nina (cooling) event and the record breaking 2015-16 El Nino (warming) event – which has so far not seen a very pronounced La Nina following, as was the case in 1999. It also probably largely explains the very fast growth rate of atmospheric CO2. As usual though, the BBC publishes alarmist hype and lies which get read by the public who, whether they really believe it or not, absorb this rubbish not knowing for sure whether it is rubbish or not. Just like we all half-believed the sexed up dodgy dossier which took the country into a catastrophic Middle East war and got Dr David Kelly ‘suicided’. The BBC and UN want us to commit to catastrophic emission reductions to avoid a ‘crisis’ which is not happening.



  1. I saw the beeb’s article but didn’t click on it. I have been rather lax of late regarding reading Aunty’s climate output, refusing to click on most of it – there seems to be little point, because they could easily summarise the bulk of the stories by “It’s worse than we thought.” There seems to have been a blizzard of material lately, and I won’t wade through it all because a) I’ve read it all before and b) I get irrationally angry about the skewed reporting.

    I did read the article about wind power suddenly becoming as cheap as chips, just so I could check that there would be no balance – looking for maybe a tad of a mention of the likely constraint payments, grid instability, maybe something about gannets being knocked out of the sky… assumption correct. No balance. In fact the news coverage was so canted that it made me smile. The TV version was something along the lines of “the news has been welcomed by environmental campaigners, but they warn that electricity generation is only 15% of the UK’s energy use, and that (paraphrasing slightly) the private car must be banned next week.” The smile was because the “environmental campaigners” are just a fat green crocodile that will eat everything you give it and demand more, and more, and more.

    Friday’s climate “strikes” were given undue prominence also. Perhaps they would be better described as “climate days off school.” Looking it up, the per-pupil funding looks like it’s about £6000/y, or about £30/d if there are 3 terms of 12 weeks of five days. How many would have turned out if there was a £30 fine for not attending a day….?

    John Humphrys’ memoir paints a rather depressing picture of a Beeb out of touch with its audience (there’s an excerpt at the mail). He does not mention climate, but his description of the morning after the referendum result was interesting.


  2. As for the BBC’s inaccurate reporting of the price of new wind farms, Paul Homewood has a take-down, and over at Bishop Hill, a contributor (“it doesn’t add up”) has confirmed that he has submitted a complaint.

    I normally compare climate alarmists to Canute, vainly trying to hold back the tide (of climate change). I fear the correct analogy is that we are Canute, vainly trying to hold back the tide of incessant climate alarmist propaganda – the usual suspects have been on overdrive these last few days.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Check out the WMO “United in Science” article. Particularly the text to the Met Office Temperature Graph.

    Then look at the map of “2015–2019 five-year average temperature anomalies relative to the 1981-2010 average”

    This “high-level report”, presented to world leaders, has not been proof-read prior to publication.


  4. After his pressured climbdown from his crticism of climate hysteria, WMO head Peteri Taalas previewed this report, which he described as “cutting edge” science in a press release:

    “WMO is coordinating a synthesis report of the latest climate science prepared under the auspices of the Science Advisory Group to the Climate Action Summit, which I co-chair. It will serve as a “transparent envelope” of authoritative and actionable cutting-edge science which underlines both the need for climate action as well as solutions to help in mitigation and adaptation.”

    The UN Message:

    The Summit will bring together governments, the private sector, civil society, local authorities and other international organizations to develop ambitious solutions in six areas: a global transition to renewable energy; sustainable and resilient infrastructures and cities; sustainable agriculture and management of forests and oceans; resilience and adaptation to climate impacts; and alignment of public and private finance with a net zero economy.

    But we must set radical change in motion.This means ending subsidies for fossil fuels and high-emitting agriculture and shifting towards renewable energy, electric vehicles and climate-smart practices. It means carbon pricing that reflects the true cost of emissions, from climate risk to the health hazards of air pollution. And it means accelerating the closure of coal plants and halting the construction of new ones and replacing jobs with healthier alternatives so that the transformation is just, inclusive and profitable.

    These are the committees that WMO’s Taalas has been co-ordinating:

    Steering Committee, led by Mexican diplomat Luis_Alfonso_de_Alba, Special Envoy for the 2019 Climate Summit, Robert C. Orr, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Climate Change; Peter Thomson, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the Ocean; and Michael Bloomberg, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Climate Action.

    Old favourites, Nick Stern and Christiana Figueres are prominent. Stern is there for Climate Finance and Carbon Pricing, something of which he has much experience. Figueres is there for Youth Mobilisation, but before her previous job as UNFCCC executive secretary, she was also involved in Carbon Finance with Stern.

    Science Advisory Committee, co-chaired by Taalas and Pachauri’s former deputy at TERI, economist Leena Srivastava. There is also representation from Potsdam and the Grantham Institute and the European Climate Foundation. Climate science is notable by almost its virtual absence.

    The Ambition Advisory Group is composed of distinguished individuals with vast experience in climate change policy, implementation and negotiations, and will have the challenge of guiding the structure of the 2019 Climate Action Summit. The Group will provide support to the Secretary-General in engagements towards delivering truly transformational, impactful, yet actionable outcomes for the Summit.

    Laurence Tubiana was in charge of the 2015 Paris shindig for France, Ajay Mathur is Pachauri’s replacement at Teri. There is also Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Leader of the Global Climate & Energy Law Practice at the World Wildlife Fund.

    He is also a member of the World Economic Forum, (The Davos Crew), https://www.weforum.org/people/manuel-pulgar-vidal-otalora

    The WEF has on its Board, Al Gore, Mark Carney and Christine Lagarde, now leaving the IMF for the European Central Bank. https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance. She was on Ban Ki Moon’s High Level Climate Finance Panel after Copenhagen, seeking to produce the Global Climate Fund of $100 billion a year. Also members were Lord Stern, George Soros, Chris Huhne, a couple of dictators, Koch-Weser of Deutsche Bank and various World Bank officionados.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. At the same time as the New York dalliance, IPCC has yet another new report ready for release: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srocc/. “The IPCC will consider the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) on 20-23 September 2019 during its 51st Session to be held in the Principality of Monaco. The report is due to be launched on 25 September 2019.”

    They are going for numbers again, and it will be reported as “The World’s Top Scientists Say It’s Worse Than We Thought”

    “For the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCCC), more than 100 scientists from more than 30 countries are assessing the latest scientific knowledge about the physical science basis and impacts of climate change on ocean, coastal, polar and mountain ecosystems, and the human communities that depend on them. Their vulnerabilities as well as adaptation capacities are also evaluated. Options for achieving climate-resilient development pathways will be presented.”

    In earlier times:
    https://www.socialistinternational.org/congresses/xix-congress-of-the-socialist-international-berlin/social-democracy-in-a-changing-world/ 1992

    Gro Harlam Brundtland (Our Common Future, Agenda 21)
    “At the Rio Conference on Environment and Development (1992) it was made clear that we are heading towards a crisis of uncontrollable dimensions unless we change course.

    Securing peace, sustainable development and democracy requires that nations, in their common interest, establish an effective system of global governance and security. In an increasingly interdependent world, we must find new ways to live – both within our own countries and on a global level – that are socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable.

    To pursue social justice, freedom and democracy will require that we pool our collective experiences and national sovereignties. There is no alternative to obligatory coordination of financial and monetary policies.”

    UN Secretary General Antonio Gutterres, is a former Vice President of the Socialist International and General Secretary of the Socialist Party, Portugal: https://www.socialistinternational.org/fileadmin/uploads/si/Documents/Congresses/XIX_Berlin/Congress_Voices_XIX_SI_Congress_Berlin.pdf


    “The argument has also been made that a carbon tax applied globally offers the better prospect for bridging the current division between developed and developing countries. The idea would be to try to put the same price on carbon everywhere and in the most direct way possible. The tax could be adjusted annually by a global body possibly similar in structure and intent to the international climate/environmental court discussed in this report.”

    This is still the goal.


  6. We are being subjected to what is obviously a coordinated worldwide revolution using religious-like faux reasoning and the most relentless counter factual propaganda ever used. They are going after our children worldwide. They are using blatant cynical fear mongering. Huge peer pressure is being applied in academia, media, finance, entertainment, and more.
    How such a completely baseless obsession over weather was turned into the means to rob us of our democracies and rational based culture and institutions is a huge mystery.
    These are strange days indeed.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Re DENNISAMBLER @11.42 am:”The Summit will bring together governments, the private sector, civil society, local authorities and other international organizations to develop ambitious solutions in six areas: a global transition to renewable energy; sustainable and resilient infrastructures and cities; sustainable agriculture and management of forests and oceans; resilience and adaptation to climate impacts; and alignment of public and private finance with a net zero economy.” …


  8. Dennis: “After his pressured climbdown from his criticism of climate hysteria, WMO head Peteri Taalas previewed this report…”

    I missed the climbdown, though it doesn’t surprise me. Got a link on that?


  9. Just because a BBC reporter made a dog’s breakfast of a report by the World Meteorological Organisation doesn’t mean that the WMO’s findings are gospel truth. The report you link to is odd, to say the least. If you click on “read more” under the very first paragraph (“The Global Climate in 2015–2019”) you find a graph from the Met Office showing temperature anomalies for 1850-2019 labelled:

    “The Fire Radiative Power (Gigawats)– a measure of heat output from wildfires shown in June for 2019 (red) and the 2003–2018 average (grey) Number of undernourished people in the world, 2015–2018 (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF and WHO, 2019”

    Then there’s the astonishing claim that:

    Gross domestic product is falling in developing countries due to increasing temperatures
    The International Monetary Fund found that for a medium and low-income developing country with an annual average temperature of 25 °C, the effect of a 1 °C increase in temperature is a fall in growth by 1.2%.

    The only 1 °C increase in temperature known to man is that occurring in the 20th century, which saw an economic growth in developing countries in the range of 100% -1000%. The IMF’s estimate of minus 1.2% lies outside that range. Luckily the IMF head responsible for this estimate, Christine Lagarde, has moved on and is now head of the European Central Bank. [Madame Lagarde is a former synchronised swimming bronze medallist, a fact to cling to as Europe sinks slowly into oblivion with one arm raised and a fixed lipsticked grin on its face.] Where was I?

    When they do get on to statistics about undernourished people, they say this:

    Food insecurity increasing

    “… climate variability and extremes are among the key drivers behind the recent rises in global hunger after a prolonged decline and one of the leading contributors to severe food crises.”

    accompanied by a bar chart showing a column of undernourished people twice as high in 2018 as in 2015. Except that a reading of the figures and a bit of long division reveals that the rate of increase of undernourished people in the world is about 1% per year, well under the rate of increase of the population of the countries where most undernourished people live. So if the claim above is true, it is presumably equally true that climate variability and extremes are among the key drivers behind the recent drop in the proportion of undernourished people. Or maybe the key driver is the increase in the number of Macdonalds’ in developing countries. Who knows? Who cares? The WMO has got its lying bar chart.

    A good rule of thumb is that a report that is stuffed with multi-coloured pie charts has been prepared by a PR firm, with the scientists at the WMO simply feeding them the stats to mangle as they wish. No-one at the WMO has even proof-read this rubbish. No-one is responsible. No-one will resign. Why should they? What would be the point, when the world is going to end in eight and a half years?


  10. I’m guessing a “fall in growth” = an estimate of future growth which should have happened minus an estimate of future growth which did not happen aka unimpressive nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. MANICBEANCOUNTER 23 Sep 2019 9.30am
    You beat me to it on the graph descriptions by twelve hours or so. Apologies for not having read your comment. More from the Circle the Wagons United in Science report:

    Sea-level rise is accelerating, sea water is becoming more acidic
    The observed rate of global mean sea- level rise increased from 3.04 millimeters per year (mm/yr) during the period 1997– 2006 to approximately 4 mm/yr during the period 2007–2016.

    ..and decreased back to approx. 3mm per year post 2016 according to the graph provided. They’ve fitted a quadratic to 26 years of data when there’s centuries of data available. OK, their data is from satellites, not tide gauges. So if satellites are so cool, why are the UAH satellite data not shown on the temperature graph?

    Heatwaves were the deadliest meteorological hazard in the 2015–2019 period..

    Really? Killing how many? Compared to what and when? The most commonly cited example of a deadly heatwave is 2003 in France. Provisional figures suggest that this year’s similar heatwave killed about one tenth of those killed in 2003. We’re talking about a few thousand frail elderly people dying more often, statistically speaking, in June/July than in September/October. And there’s less now – magnitudes less – than there were before. So why is the WMO talking about it?

    There were multiple fires in the Amazon rainforest in 2019, in particular in August.

    This sentence alone deserves to be parsed and parsed (though I can’t be arsed.) It’s true of course. As it’s true that there were multiple fires on the Champs Elysées last Saturday. The question is: What is the WMO doing announcing such a fact? It’s not science, is it? It’s not meteorology. So why are a committee of highly qualified scientists announcing this banality? They don’t say. They daren’t say.

    Let’s get down and racist for a moment and explain things. Look at the names of the authors of this report. None of them are known climate scientists. All of them have names which suggest that they are not native English speakers. Half of them seem from their first names to be female. Many are at prestigious international organisations or western universities. No doubt they are all intelligent, honest experts in their fields. But they’ve been chosen, hand-picked to be immune to criticism by elderly white denialists. They’ve put their names to a document that is full of shit, but pointing out that fact is impossible in decent society.

    This is what science has come to.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. You’re right of course Geoff, the report itself is full of shit. The BBC merely put the glace cherry on top of the icing of the shit-cake, pretending that it was the momentous occasion where the irrefutable evidence was finally wedded to the Science and God help us all if we did not take note of this momentous union. But a significant number of us here are not decent and as surely as a spade is a spade, we will call it so. Science has not come to this. This is the ill-tide which has washed up on the shores of science. Damned if I will not help clean up the beach from this effluent that has rolled in, even if it does mean just neutralising a few turds.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Hi Jaime

    bit o/t but after the BBC news showing Greta’s speech & the reaction to it from the adults in the UN forum
    I am not surprised any more that some use any tool to further goals they have.
    nobody seems confident enough to challenge this 16y old angry person on her doomsday predictions/facts.

    Trump should have stopped & asked her how she got the US & how she’s going home.


  14. Geoff @ 10.24pm
    Apologies accepted. I showed the issue in pictures you used the words.
    Reading further down the WMO “United In Science” report I came across a serious allegation that the recent El Nino was responsible for food insecurity increasing between 2015 and 2018. This is the screenshot.

    As a (slightly manic) beancounter I like to check figures and put them in context. Visually, the graph projects a large increase in the undernourished people in the world. But this is largely due to the scaling of the graph. From 2015 to 2018 the undernourished increased from 785.4 to 821.6 million or by 4.6%. This is still a large increase. From the World Bank data, World Population was estimated to have increased from 7341 to 7594 million or by 3.4%. The vast majority of the increase is accounted for by population increase. As a proportion of the World Population, the malnourished only increased from 10.70% to 10.82% or 1.1%. Note the rounding error!
    But this is the short-term context. The World Bank has malnourishment data as a proportion of the global population from 2000 to 2017. A fairly short period, but still a much wider period than the WMO.

    There is the same uptick from 2015 present in the WMO data. Much more important is the massive decline from 2002 to 2015, from over 15% of the global population to less than 11%. In the 1970s or early 1980s I believe more than a third of the global population would have been malnourished. In 1900 more than half.
    Suppose that the increase in the proportion malnourished since 2015 was due to the El Nino factors, which is a natural phenomenon, possibly augmented by human-caused global warming. That would still leave most of the increase in malnourishment since 2015 due to population increases. But the decrease in malnourishment over a much longer period is due to (a) long-term economic growth (b) the green revolution lead by Norman Borlaug (c) other technological changes. It is accepted in the “UNFCCC Paris Agreement” Article 4.1 that developing countries should not sacrifice short-term economic growth to constrain their GHG emissions. The long term decrease in malnourishment (or the decrease in those in absolute poverty) is testament to the need for prioritisation of short-term development over long-term climate mitigation. But as “developing” countries form >80% of the global population, >60% of global emissions and around 100% of the net increase in emissions in the last 25-30 years, any aim of reducing global emissions to zero before say in 20 or 30 years ain’t going to happen.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Manic, thanks for this:

    “But as “developing” countries form >80% of the global population, >60% of global emissions and around 100% of the net increase in emissions in the last 25-30 years, any aim of reducing global emissions to zero before say in 20 or 30 years ain’t going to happen.”

    It’s the elephant in the room, and the obvious problem that the BBC, Guardian, XR, Greta and all the rest of them never talk about. It’s why I think they’re crazy. We in the west could do everything they demand, destroy our way of life, and make not a jot of difference to anything meaningful climatically.

    When the BBC, Guardian et al talked about climate demonstrations all over the world last week, they failed to notice the lack of any such demonstrations in China.

    You can be a fully-fledged believer in man-made climate change and its potentially catastrophic effects on humankind and on “the planet” but you should still be capable of joining these dots. Yet very few, if any of them, ever do join the dots. It’s one of the reasons why I consider it to be a religion. Logic never enters the equation.


  16. DFHunter,

    Trump will be Trump I guess. He decided to completely ignore her which, on reflection, I think was the best policy. Who is she anyway? Just a disturbed kid who played truant and has been elevated to a wholly artificial status by her parents and the climate fanatics around her. But Trump did manage to officially tweet his impressions of what a happy young girl she seemed!



  17. There has always been something about Greta that reminds me of someone I couldn’t quite recall.
    Bit then when I saw Greta’s ook of homicidal privileged hate framed by her skinny pigtails, it came to me:

    Only a freakish family like the Addams would monetize a disabled child while indulging her every whim and fill her head with extremist claptrap.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Note the circular graphic “United in Science” only mentions the quantity and growth in CO2 emissions whilst calling for reductions in GHG emissions. One is a subset of the other and recognition of the difference is highly significant for constraining average temperature rise to a target level. This distinction used to be clear. The 2006 Stern Review stated in its summary of conclusions

    The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year. Stabilisation in this range would require emissions to be at least 25% below current levels by 2050, and perhaps much more.

    The 430ppm CO2e was estimated when CO2 levels were about 385 ppm, up from 280ppm in pre-industrial times. As CO2 levels are now above 410 ppm, one must assume that CO2e levels are well beyond 450ppm. If a doubling of CO2 will eventually lead to 3C of warming, then 1.5C comes in at 396ppm and 2C at 444ppm. You can check the maths for yourselves from plugging values into a simple formula found here.

    I believe are at least four assumptions that are required to maintain that warming can be constrained to 1.5C or 2C. These are (a) long time lag to achieve climate equilibrium such that (b) only the transient climate response is considered. Achieving TCR still takes decades. Also (c) state the target warming for 2100, with warming exceeding the target in the interim and (d) assume net negative global emissions later in the century. These can be gleaned from table 6.3 AR5 WG3 Ch6 p431 and Figure ES.1: Carbon neutrality in the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2014. There could be sleights of hand, such as only considering CO2 in the calculations. As the assumptions are not clearly stated there could be others.

    Adjusting these assumptions even with the known range of uncertainties will either make emissions less alarming in their warming consequences or make the given warming inevitable no matter what policy action is taken. The actual policy goal of reducing global emissions reductions by 2030 was tacitly admitted to be unachievable in the UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2018.


  19. GEOFF CHAMBERS says:
    23 Sep 19 at 10:24 pm

    “There were multiple fires in the Amazon rainforest in 2019, in particular in August”

    It concerns me that they wish to infringe the rights of indigenous peoples to light fires in order to grow food and preserve their way of life:


    “The Amazon isn’t one continuous block of lush rainforest as in the Western imagination, but rather a landscape of multiple ecosystems including forest, wetlands and savannas. Indigenous and local communities use fire within these habitats in different ways. For example, fire is used in small-scale rotational forest farming where typically half hectare plots are cut, burned and planted for a number of years, before being left to regenerate.

    And in the fire-prone savanna, Indigenous people use fire to drive and trap game such as deer or the pig-like peccary. For many Indigenous groups in the Amazon, their entire way of life is predicated on sustainable fire. For example, the Mebêngokrê (Kayapó) people, who live in a remote region of the Brazilian Amazon, use fire to hunt for tortoises.”

    Where are WWF when you need them? Ah yes,

    Geoff, you say,
    “None of them are known climate scientists. All of them have names which suggest that they are not native English speakers. Half of them seem from their first names to be female. Many are at prestigious international organisations or western universities.”

    I haven’t checked the CV’s on these authors yet, but I predict with 97% certainty, (if I am wrong of course, I will say nothing), that there will be many Potsdam, Grantham, IIASA, Stockholm Resilience Centre and Melbourne Uni links. As with the SR15 authors I expect there will be few climate scientists and a whole load of economists, sociologists, sustainable development specialists, a couple of lawyers, a couple of psychologists, geographers, ecologists etc and a new crop of acolytes and disciples, having been raised on the oh so brilliant climate models: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/

    It is UN policy that gender and diversity policies are applied when selecting authors, so it matters not if they are any good, you must strive for gender and diversity balance. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/01/110520190810-Doc.-10-Rev.1TG-Gender.pdf

    “According to the IPCC, 44% of AR6 authors are citizens of developing countries and countries with “economies in transition”. This compares with 37% for AR5.

    Using the UN’s classification of “Annex I” and “Non-Annex I” countries, 58% of AR6 authors (420) are from the former and 42% (301) are from the latter. Agreed in 1992, Annex I countries are industrialised countries that agreed to binding targets to cut emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, while Non-Annex I countries are mainly developing nations that were not expected to make significant emissions cuts.

    Gender balance
    The IPCC provides binary male/female data for all the AR6 authors. Across all 721 authors of AR6, 67% are male and 33% female. This compares with 79% vs. 21% for AR5.

    For the individual working groups, WG2 has the most even balance of gender for its authors (59% male vs. 41% female), followed by WG3 (69% vs. 31%) and then WG1 (73% vs. 27%).

    This gender balance is largely reflected across the different types of IPCC scientists – coordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors. The most male-dominated group is the review editors for WG1, with 31 men (84%) to six women (16%).

    Twenty-six countries have only male authors represented in AR6, although 14 of these only have one author in total. The country with the most male-only authors is Cuba with six. In contrast, there are 10 countries with only female authors – however, all but the Dominican Republic have just the one author.

    It is worth remembering that authors are not paid for the time they commit to the IPCC, so contributors will also have a day job that pays their salary. Therefore, apart from a handful of independent or retired scientists, each AR6 author will be affiliated to at least one institution. [the affiliations do change on a regular basis, as they move around the various institutions to improve the consensus].

    The graphic below shows the organisations represented by at least four authors across all three working groups. Three organisations come out on top with nine authors each: the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Vienna, the University of Tokyo and the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France.

    Then, there are two organisations with eight authors each: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the US and the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

    The highest-placed UK institution is the University of Reading with seven authors. It sits alongside the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia and the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.”

    And there you have it, the world’s top scientists. I just can’t wait for AR6.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. thanks for the Quadrant article link Dennis & others.
    snippet –

    “He is contemptuous of claims about models being “validated”, saying the modellers are merely “trying to construct narratives that justify the use of these models for climate predictions.” And he concludes,

    The take-home message is (that) all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily …there is no reason to trust their predictions/forecasts.”

    Dr. Mototaka Nakamura may struggle to get that (old) message understood.


  21. new to me – https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/sep/25/greta-thunberg-wins-alternative-nobel-environmental-work-guo-jianmei-right-livelihood-awards

    “Greta Thunberg wins ‘alternative Nobel’ for environmental work…

    Thunberg and her fellow laureates will each receive 1m Swedish krona (£83,000) to further their work in addition to long-term support that includes help and protection for those “whose lives and liberty are in danger”

    “The Right Livelihood awards began in 1980 after the Nobel foundation rejected a proposal for two new prizes for work on the environment and within developing countries. Previous winners include Edward Snowden, Wangari Maathai and Alan Rusbridger.”

    why Alan Rusbridger you may ask, because –
    “The Guardian’s editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger has been awarded 2014’s Right Livelihood Honorary Award, recognising his work in “building a global media organisation dedicated to responsible journalism in the public interest, undaunted by the challenges of exposing corporate and government malpractices”.

    what a robin hood!!!


  22. This, from the Quadrant article, goes to the very heart of climate science and its oft-quoted vast accumulation of research and ‘evidence’ which points not just to the reality of man-made global warming, but to the fact that it is a ‘problem’ which must be urgently addressed:

    Today’s vast panoply of “global warming science” is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers’ black boxes as a given.

    A fine example is from the Australian Academy of Science’s explanatory booklet of 2015. It claims, absurdly, that the models’ outputs are “compelling evidence” for human-caused warming.[ii] Specifically, it refers to model runs with and without human emissions and finds the “with” variety better matches the 150-year temperature record (which itself is a highly dubious construct). Thus satisfied, the Academy then propagates to the public and politicians the models’ forecasts for disastrous warming this century.

    Which brings us, in a roundabout way, to the Resplandy et al paper referred to by Paul in his most recent post. Pielke Jr., noting that it had been retracted, then makes this rather odd statement:


    There’s that ‘vast literature’ again which the Quadrant article identifies as the upside down pyramid built entirely on the work of just a few climate modellers. But what is more fascinating is that Roger thinks that the “climate community” addressed the problems with Resplandy et al. They didn’t. Judith Curry puts him right on that:

    If it was up to the climate community, Resplandy et al would probably still be included in that ‘vast body of literature’ and would still be being cited no doubt as evidence for assuming a higher climate sensitivity and for where all that puzzling ‘missing heat’ went.


  23. from Jaime’s link to Curry & Nic’s post –
    “I believe that this saga, as well as showing how ineffective journal peer review tends to be in spotting problematic issues in papers, illustrates the need for a much closer involvement of statisticians in climate science research”

    seem to recall a Stephen McIntyre at Climate Audit saying the same many years ago & getting ignored/smeared by CS elite.


  24. Anybody watch BBC 2 latest cutting edge prog tonight – The Conspiracy Files?
    all the people on the so called “Conspiracy” side seemed to me to have valid points/concerns.

    will they do prog on climate/global warming/heating Conspiracy I wonder!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.