How can anyone trust IPCC

Figure 1. The Cook Islands in the South Seas are still there

And they show the lush greenery that comes from carbon dioxide. The beautiful sandy beach consists of gravel from the skeletons of dead corals, which are washed up by the waves. The islands are created by the corals and grow with the corals. 80 years of aerial photography and satellite photos show no signs that the islands in the South Seas are disappearing as the IPCC predicted 30 years ago.

Instead they have increased their area by 3 – 6% ! !

The IPCC’s consistently false predictions

I have to rant about the IPCC’s lack of credibility. It is glaringly obvious, yet the media continues to pass on its alarms, often the same ones disproved by reality for 30 years. Here are some examples of failed predictions from the IPCC and its closest circle of “climate scientists”:

Ever since 1989, they have been predicting a catastrophic future, if the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide continues to rise, often with a time frame of 10 – 12 years. Many deadlines have now expired and we can state that the IPCC is mostly wrong:

The South Sea islands would disappear, drowned by rising seas. On the contrary, most have grown by a few percent according to aerial photographs taken by the University of Auckland, New Zealand, since 1943.
The deserts would grow. On the contrary, they have shrunk. The Earth has become 13 % greener in 30 years.
Harvests would decrease. On the contrary, they have increased very dramatically according to the FAO.
Famine would increase. On the contrary, it has been almost eliminated according to the World Bank.
The Arctic seas were supposed to be ice-free in the summer of 2013. On the contrary, the spread grew then. Data since 2007 indicate that the ice is now growing.
The polar bears were threatened with extinction. On the contrary, they have become many more, over 30,000, and they are doing well.

Note that the alarms didn’t just turn out to be false:

The reality has become the exact opposite !

Nevertheless, the IPCC persists in its latest report with similar alarms. It can only be interpreted as extreme incompetence.

Computer simulations with guessed input data

The failures are due to an unrealistic belief in computer simulations. It is particularly noteworthy that the IPCC’s own working group WG I already condemned simulations of the climate in 2001.

In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and that it is therefore not possible to predict long-term future climate conditions.

A “chaos” is just “unpredictable”. The IPCC’s climate models consequently have failed miserably.

Yet for 20 years the IPCC has continued to base its predictions on computer simulations.

In the Wall Street Journal 02/06/2023, two of the top providers of computer simulations declared that:

“If you don’t get clouds right, everything is out of whack.” said Tapio Schneider, an atmospheric scientist at the California Institute of Technology and the Climate Modeling Alliance, which is developing an experimental model. “Clouds are crucially important for regulating Earth’s energy balance.”

Physicist Andrew Gettelman at NCAR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, explained: “The old way of counting is all wrong.”

The WSJ journalist did not conclude the sensational meaning: Carbon dioxide cannot be the “dominant driver” of climate changes.

The IPCC is so political that they don’t understand what “science” is

Figure 2. IPCC decision-making assembly at the 30th anniversary in Paris 2018

(The IPCC is a wholly political body governed by all of UN’s nations with a 69 % majority of development countries of the group G77)

This is roughly how the IPCC’s summary report SPM, Summary for Policy Makers, comes about. Delegates, who are usually politicians or bureaucrats without scientific training, get to see the proposed text on a large screen. Then comes proposals for changes, after which the text must be approved by all “word for word”. It takes one or two weeks in an uninterrupted session. This is a completely open admission that they do not understand what “science” is. The misunderstanding is so total that they openly confirm it in several ways. And it has happened from the very beginning: The IPCC’s first chairman, the Swede Bert Bolin, announced from the beginning: The science is settled and there is a consensus among climate scientists about the dominant effect of carbon dioxide on the climate. This means that the IPCC has always dealt with pseudoscience and politics but NOT with “science”. It is not changed by reducing the “agreement” from 100% to 97%.

New chairman, but extremist general secretary

Jim Skea has taken over as chairman of the IPCC and criticized the previously excessively alarmist alarms from the IPCC. The question is whether he can change its course, as his superior, Secretary-General António Guterres, actually takes an even more extreme course: