C3

From An Expert Lead Author: The Sordid IPCC History Of The 'Hockey Stick' Fabrication

(click on image to enlarge)

The adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.

Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.

Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?

"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred.  My main unanswered question is:  How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR?  He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D.  It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."

Additional climate-history articles. The Michael Mann self-perpetuated, embarrassing "science" fiasco continues, as described here and here.

Smithsonian Magazine: Sniffing The Green-Nazi Glue Delivers Scary Global Warming Hallucinations

(click on image to enlarge)

WUWT produces another example of the elite establishments' propaganda promoting bogus climate change alarmism. There is little, if any, empirical evidence of the climate refugee claim, unless one actually believes the output of egregiously error-prone climate computer models.

Instead of educating its readers about global warming reality, the Smithsonian delivers typically lame press release "science," enhanced with hyperbolic statements, which have been thoroughly debunked in the past.

Personally, I canceled my Smithsonian subscription over a decade ago after tiring from their constant anti-empirical, political-agenda science. But for those who still do subscribe, one might want to keep this infograph handy to help spot the magazine's bogus claims and bad science reporting.

For your added pleasure, obvious additional speculative hyperbole from the magazine:

====> "Other health threats have been enumerated by Robert Repetto, a United Nations Foundation economist, who says climate change will intensify smog, leading to “increased outbreaks of asthma and allergies,” and “exacerbate vector-borne diseases such as hantavirus, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and dengue fever.” Repetto also worries about the “extreme weather events” that some researchers say climate change will engender...Heat waves themselves pose a health risk, especially for young children and the elderly—and world-class athletes...Even people who don’t have to move will experience a bewildering sense of dislocation as the environment changes around them—as Northern winters start to be measured in weeks rather than months."

Those Stubborn Facts: 99.9% Proof That IPCC "Expert" Climate Models Are Hugely Wrong - The Science Is Indisputable

The huge failure of "expert" climate science goes all the way back to the IPCC's genesis: its 1990 predictions provide the 99.9% proof that their global warming fear-mongering is without scientific merit.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

Climate reality and actual evidence-based science has completely eviscerated the global warming claims of the IPCC's "scientists" and those in the "consensus" choir.

Recent climate change predictions produced by the latest bleeding-edge computer models have proven to be spectacularly wrong.

Longer-term proof that the IPCC (and its climate-doomsday religion acolytes) is provided by the original "expert" predictions that were first published back in 1990. That proof is clearly obvious from the accompanying chart.

Simply stated: the IPCC predicted that if human emissions of CO2 kept growing in a business-as-usual (BAU) manner, the world would experience a high likelihood of global warming acceleration - to a per century rate of 2.8°C.

Instead, as the chart depicts, global warming since 1990 has achieved only a 1.4°C per century rate, per the global-wide 24/7 measurements of satellites. Yet the BAU growth of human emission tonnes actually accelerated to a 13.2% annual rate for the 10 years ending 2013. Those are the stubborn facts that are indisputable, unequivocal and irrefutable.

This cataclysmic failure of orthodoxy, green religion-based, climate-science-doomsday predictions is now being referred to as one of science's biggest mysteries - a confirmation of 99.9% proof one could surmise, and the public reportedly agrees with.

And let's not forget the proof that the doomsday climate scientists are confirming their own spectacular prediction failures with the recent plethora of excuses.

Additional modern, historical and climate-model charts.

Newest Climate Research: Snow Extent Unaffected By Human CO2 Emissions, Contrary To IPCC "Expert" Predictions

Whether the "experts" are the IPCC's climate models or associated scientists, their climate predictions for Northern Hemisphere snow extent, i.e., square kilometer coverage, have been robustly wrong...

(click on chart to enlarge)

The IPCC has become globally infamous for their atrocious climate change, global warming predictions (read brief summary).

There are multiple examples of the up-to-date empirical evidence confirming that the IPCC's doomsday climate predictions are without merit - here, here, here and here are just a few examples.

And at the close of March 2014, it is now possible to compare the latest empirical evidence versus the IPCC "expert" prediction that human CO2 emissions would severely reduce snow coverage across the Northern Hemisphere during winter months (December, January, February and March).

As this accompanying chart obviously indicates, snow extent has actually increased over the short term (see 3-year average curve); and since the beginning of the dataset, winter snows have ranged within a narrow band.

During any given year's winter, there are periods of extremely large snow extent, soon to be followed by low extremes. This natural variation occurs despite the growing surge of CO2 emissions, as denoted by the methodically increasing black step-curve.

For many regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the past several winters since 2007 have witnessed brutal winters of extreme snow and cold, which the upsurge of the chart's 3-year average curve corroborates. As additional corraboration, there is the actual global sea ice growth that also mocks the "expert" IPCC predictions.

Addtional severe-weather articles and charts. Chronological list of severe weather/climate events.

Note: Datasets used to plot Excel chart: snow and CO2. Don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy. Go here to learn how.

IPCC Gold-Standard Confirms: CO2 No Longer Has Any Global Warming Impact On Month of February

Even the gold-standard global temperature dataset that the UN's IPCC relies on confirms the disappearance of global warming.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

Despite the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on both the global warming research and associated IPCC reports, the "consensus expert" climate change predictions have been spectacularly wrong.

When analyzing February global temperatures since 1980, the supposedly powerfully "warming" atmosphere trace gas CO2 has been of questionable impact.

As this chart indicates, whatever impact it may have had, clearly CO2 "global warming" cannot be counted as one of them, since 1998.

Ahh...those stubborn climate facts that are despised by the doomsday alarmists.

Additional modern and regional temperature charts. Temperature and CO2 datasets used in above Excel chart.