Thorough analysis by Clintel shows serious errors in latest IPCC report

The IPCC ignored crucial peer-reviewed literature showing that normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and that human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920. The IPCC, by cherry picking from the literature, drew the opposite conclusions, claiming increases in damage and mortality due to anthropogenic climate change.

These are two important conclusions of the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC, published by the Clintel Foundation.

The 180-page report is – as far as we know – the first serious international ‘assessment’ of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report. In 13 chapters the Clintel report shows the IPCC rewrote climate history, emphasizes an implausible worst-case scenario, has a huge bias in favour of ‘bad news’ and against ‘good news’, and keeps the good news out of the Summary for Policy Makers.

The errors and biases that Clintel documents in the report are far worse than those that led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC Review) in 2010. Clintel believes that the IPCC should reform or be dismantled.

With the recently published Synthesis Report, the IPCC finished its sixth assessment cycle, consisting of seven reports in total. An international team of scientists from the Clintel network has analysed several claims from the Working Group 1 (The Physical Science Basis) and Working Group 2 (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) reports. This has now led to the report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC.

In every chapter the Clintel report documents biases and errors in the IPCC assessment. The errors are worse in the WG2 report than in the WG1 report. Given the political relevance of what is known as “Loss and Damage” (at the yearly COP meetings, countries currently negotiate donations to a Loss and Damage fund) one would expect a thorough review of the relevant literature. However, Clintel shows that the IPCC has totally failed in this respect.

For example, a review article on the subject, published in 2020, showed that 52 out of 53 peer reviewed papers dealing with “normalised disaster losses” saw no increase in harms that could be attributed to climate change. The IPCC highlighted the single paper that claimed an increase in losses. That paper is – unsurprisingly – flawed, but its cherry picking by the IPCC suggests they found its conclusions irresistible.

Climate-related deaths

“We are on a highway to climate hell”, said UN-boss Guterres recently. But an in-depth look at the mortality data shows that climate-related deaths are at an all-time low. Well-known economist Bjorn Lomborg published that important information in a 2020 peer-reviewed paper, but the IPCC, again, chose to ignore it.

The strategy of the IPCC seems to be to hide any good news about climate change and hype anything bad.

Erasing climate history

The Working Group 1 report is not free from bias and misleading conclusions either. The report documents problems in every chapter. The IPCC has tried to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum (or Holocene Climate Optimum), a warm period between 10,000 and 6000 years ago. It has introduced a new hockey stick graph, which is the result of cherry-picked proxies. And it has ignored temperature reconstructions that show more variability in the past, such as the well-documented Little Ice Age.

The IPCC claims there is an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise in recent decades. Clintel has shown this claim is flawed, because the IPCC ignores decadal variability in sea level. We also show that its sea-level tool – made available for the first time – shows a mysterious and improbable jump upward in 2020.

Climate sensitivity

Canadian economist Ross McKitrick has pointed out that all global climate models used by the IPCC show too much warming in the troposphere, both globally and in the tropics (where models predict a ‘hotspot’). This probably indicates some fundamental problems in the way that these models simulate the climate system.

A ’spectacular’ result of the IPCC AR6 report was the rise of the lower bound for the climate sensitivity likely range from 1.5°C to 2.5°C, therefore claiming that low values for climate sensitivity are now unlikely. The Clintel report shows this rise is not justified. The Clintel report suggests that observed warming and other evidence indicates that the true figure is more likely to be below 2°C than above 2.5°C. This also means that the best estimate for climate sensitivity, which the IPCC says is 3°C, is not justified.

On top of that, the IPCC is ‘addicted’ to its highest emissions scenario, so-called RCP8.5 (or now SSP5-8.5). In recent years, several papers have demonstrated that this scenario is implausible and should not be used for policy purposes. Deep inside the WG1 report, the IPCC acknowledges that this scenario has a ‘low likelihood’ but this very important remark was not highlighted in the Summary for Policymakers, so these important audiences are unaware of the issue. RCP8.5 is the scenario most often referred to in the IPCC report.

IAC Review

Back in 2010, errors in the WG2 report of the Fourth Assessment led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Interacademy Council (IAC). This review recommended, amongst other things, that “[h]aving author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered.” This important recommendation is still being ignored by the IPCC. Worse, we document that Roger Pielke Jr, a scientist with considerable expertise in these areas, is regarded as a kind of ‘Voldemort’ by the IPCC, and they deliberately avoid mentioning his work or even his name. This leads to biased conclusions.

Reform

We are sorry to conclude that the IPCC has done a poor job of assessing the scientific literature. All countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies and most of the media blindly trust its claims. The Clintel report The Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC shows that this trust is not justified.

In our view the IPCC should be reformed, and should include a broader range of views. Inviting scientists with different views, such as Roger Pielke Jr and Ross McKitrick, to participate more actively in the process is a necessary first step. If, for some reason, such inclusion of different views is unacceptable, the IPCC should be dismantled.

Our own conclusions about climate – based on the same underlying literature – are far less bleak. Due to increasing wealth and advancing technology, humanity is largely immune to climate change and can easily cope with it. Global warming is far less dangerous to humanity than the IPCC tells us.

https://clintel.org/thorough-analysis-by-clintel-shows-serious-errors-in-latest-ipcc-report/

***********************************************

Is Macron finally taking on the cult of Net Zero?

Hell hath no fury like an environmentalist scorned and Emmanuel Macron has felt a wave of green wrath since his declaration last week that France has gone far enough in pursuit of Net Zero. ‘We are ahead, in regulatory terms, of the Americans, the Chinese and of any other power in the world,’ said Macron in a speech at the Élysée. ‘We must not make any new changes to the rules, because we will lose all the players,’ he continued.

Calling for a ‘pause’ of more EU environmental red tape, Macron said member states required stability if they were to attract future investment.

One could argue that 21st century western workers are being exploited by the powerful and aggressive environmental lobby

A day later, the president doubled down on his remarks while on a visit to Europe’s leading steel producer in Dunkirk. ‘I prefer factories that respect our European standards, which are the best, rather than those who want to add more and more standards, but without having any more factories,’ declared Macron.

There was a reason Macron chose Dunkirk. It is Marine Le Pen territory, a region where unemployment is at 9 per cent, 2 per cent more than the national average. ‘The Dunkirk basin has lost 6,000 industrial jobs in 20 years,’ acknowledged the president. ‘We will recreate 16,000 by 2030.’

The steel workers approved of what they heard, and so do many on the centre-right. An online poll by Le Figaro received 160,000 respondents in the first 24 hours, 70 per cent of whom agreed with their president that there is too much bureaucratic green tape.

But from the left there has been only rage. ‘Absolutely irresponsible’ cried the Green MP Sandrine Rousseau, who said it wasn’t fewer environmental regulations that were needed: ‘On the contrary, we have to increase them.’

Her party colleague Sandra Regol levelled that most damning of accusations at Macron, that of ‘climate denial’, adding that he was ‘taking France back to the 1980s’.

The far-left France Insoumise were also outraged. ‘It’s not as if there’s a [climate] emergency’, tweeted a sardonic Damien Maudet. One of the party’s MEPs, Manon Aubry, thundered that Macron ‘is now using the same rhetoric, word for word, as the European right and far right, who want to kill the implementation of the rest of the European climate package’.

Curiously, the hard left trade union, CGT, which has been at the forefront of this year’s pension reform protests, joined the chorus of disapproval at the president’s declaration. ‘We are not going to sacrifice the environmental issue to the economic issue,’ said Sophie Binet, the CGT secretary general. ‘It’s extremely serious to do that.’

That statement is curious because the CGT was established at the end of the 19th century to, in the words of its charter, defend workers’ rights in the ‘class struggle’ against exploitative bosses. One could argue that 21st century western workers are being exploited by the powerful and aggressive environmental lobby, which imposes regulation after regulation to the detriment of industry and prosperity.

But the CGT is no longer an organisation that battles on behalf of blue-collar workers; like most trade unions and left-wing political parties in Britain and France, it has been captured by the progressive managerial class. A generation ago the leader of the CGT was a man who was an apprentice railwayman at 15; now it’s led by someone who read philosophy at university.

The CGT seems more interested in social justice – marching in the cause of ‘Islamophobia’, the environment and LGBTQ rights – rather than striving to support those suffering the effects of deindustrialisation. This dereliction of duty might explain why the membership of the CGT has declined so dramatically in the last 20 years.

At the same time that the CGT and the French Socialists have been shedding supporters, Marine Le Pen has been attracting followers, many of them blue-collar workers who once voted left. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, founded the National Front in 1972, growing it from a fringe party to one that reached the second round of the 2002 presidential election by latching onto the two preoccupations of the working-class: immigration and deindustrialisation.

In a 2005 speech Le Pen urged his supporters to vote ‘No’ in the impending referendum on the EU Constitution. He blamed Europe, as much as the French elite, for the fact that in 30 years the number of people employed in the industrial sector had fallen from six to three million. ‘Unemployment has taken hold in a structural manner, born of deindustrialisation and the drastic reduction in the number of people working in agriculture, trade and crafts,’ said Le Pen.

This same sense of grievance accounted for the success in April of the newly-formed Farmer Citizen Movement in the Dutch regional elections. As Eva Vlaardingerbroek wrote in the Spectator, the Movement had tapped into the ‘larger conflict between the authoritarian green agenda being pushed by our government and the silent majority paying for it all’.

If the French establishment wants to avoid their nightmare scenario of a Marine Le Pen presidency in 2027 they will do so only by addressing mass immigration and deindustrialisation. Ignoring these issues, while foisting on the public an authoritarian green agenda, will ensure Le Pen becomes the first female leader of the Fifth Republic.

Macron appears to be getting the message, though one can never be sure with Monsieur ‘En Meme Temps’ [At the Same Time]. There is a reason why he’s acquired that nickname among his opponents: he has a habit of saying or doing one thing and the next week the exact opposite.

Last year Macron relaunched France’s nuclear industry – just as Germany closed the last of its reactors – and in the next decade or so six new reactors will be built and 100,000 jobs created. Apprentice schemes are coming back into fashion, providing opportunities for young men and women of different classes and ethnicities.

When the nuclear energy bill was presented to parliament in March this year it passed without problem; the centre-right Republicans supported it, so too Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and the Communists. The Greens, the Socialists and La France Insoumise all voted against.

The truth is that Net Zero has become a bourgeois cult, and their self-absorbed domineering has been tolerated for too long.

As the Yellow Vests told the environmental lobby as they took to the streets in 2018 to protest against a green fuel tax: ‘You talk about the end of the world while we are talking about the end of the month.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/05/is-macron-finally-taking-on-the-cult-of-net-zero/ ?

************************************************

Embrace of LNG by G7 a setback for climate goals, experts warn

The Group of Seven's move to promote deliveries of liquefied natural gas as a temporary response to the energy crisis prompted warnings from environmental groups over the continued embrace of fossil fuels, with one expert pinning blame on the hosts.

At their summit in Hiroshima, G7 leaders also stressed the importance of making a green transformation and pledged to ramp up clean energy investments. Specifically, they mentioned a collective increase in offshore wind capacity of 150 gigawatts by 2030 to meet a joint commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% and fully or predominantly decarbonize the power sector by 2035.

But it was the G7's approval of new gas investments to survive the ongoing energy shortages stemming from the Russia-Ukraine war that caught the attention of environmental organizations.

While Germany, which has been hit particularly hard by the cut off of Russian gas supplies, has been boosting investment to diversify its LNG sources, NGOs said it contradicted what experts said was needed to achieve decarbonization goals.

“If Germany continues to focus its negotiation power on new gas investments rather than leading the way for a future free of fossil fuels, this won’t be possible. Worse, the G7 is ignoring the International Energy Agency’s call to refrain from any new investments into fossil fuels, not just coal, to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees,” said Friederike Roder, vice president for Global Advocacy, Global Citizen.

Others noted that the decision on LNG means more delays on transitioning out of fossil fuel.

“By further investing in fossil fuels, the G7 leaders are missing out on the rapidly accelerating competitive edge of clean energy, and the wide range of associated benefits for people, businesses and economies,” said Gillian Nelson, policy director of the We Mean Business Coalition.

The G7 also backed Japan's efforts to promote the abatement of carbon emissions from fossil fuel plants through introducing controversial new carbon capture utilization and storage technologies.

However, only conditional support was given to Japan’s push for ammonia co-fired coal plants and hydrogen energy in the power sector.

Such technologies should be developed only if they can be aligned with the 2015 Paris Agreement's goal of keeping the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, the joint communique said.

The G7’s reaffirmation of its commitment to jointly mobilize $100 billion annually until 2025 to help mitigate climate change and supporting climate-vulnerable groups was praised, although concern was raised about how the G7 countries would achieve this.

“While it is encouraging to see a commitment to finally meet the $100 billion international climate finance promise in 2023, no new pledges have been made to give this promise some credibility,” Roder said.

Kimiko Hirata, executive director of Climate Integrate, put the blame for the G7’s continued push for fossil fuel investments on Japan, and what she said was a lack of a sense of urgency about the climate crisis on the part of the Japanese government.

“Japan didn’t prioritize the climate agenda throughout the negotiations, but rather blocked key issues that needed to be progressed, such as setting a timeline for a coal phase out. Japan also pushed new fossil-based technologies for the thermal power sector (such as carbon capture utilization and storage technologies), driven by its domestic interests,“ she said.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/05/21/national/g7-climate-plan-concern/ ?

**************************************************

Solar power uses more energy than it produces

In Australia, great reliance is being placed on electricity generation from solar panels, both roof-mounted and solar farms. The aim is to replace generation from coal and gas to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Researchers recognise that, for this to succeed, the electricity generated and used must be greater than the electricity expended in making and installing the panels (embodied energy). The number of years it takes for this energy recovery is called Energy Pay-Back Time (EPBT). It is clear that pay-back times should be short because, until the embodied energy is replaced, there cannot be any positive output.

Numerous studies have determined that the pay-back time is between one and five years for rooftop solar and longer for solar farms. This is all very well, but solar panels alone are not a practical, generating system. Nothing is generated from late afternoon through the night to the next morning. No electricity every night… Clearly, a battery has to be added for continuous supply and the embodied energy from the manufacture of the battery has to be included in the analysis. Electricity consumed overnight is replaced when the battery is recharged by the solar panel during the next day.

What happens if the next day is cloudy? Clearly, a bigger battery and a bigger solar panel would be needed. The embodied energy of the bigger battery and panel must be included in assessing pay-back time and the viability of the system. What if the day after that is also cloudy? An even bigger battery and panel than needed. How many cloudy days need to be accounted for?

Any electricity generation system that cannot recover the energy embodied in its manufacture, in a short time or not at all in its lifetime, cannot be considered viable for electricity supply or for emissions reduction.

Yooko Tsuchiya et al reported on two cases of PV electricity generation systems in sub-Saharan rural Tanzania, concluding that EPBT analyses showed unsatisfactory performance. They reported that: ‘At one site, the EPBT even exceeded the lifespan of the PV panel, indicating that energy recovery was impossible.’

The question arises as to whether PV electricity generation can replace coal/gas generation in Australia. This study examines the energy recovery potential of rooftop solar for three cities in Australia representing the extremes of climate, viz. Melbourne, (worst case state capital for sunny days, excepting Hobart), Perth, (best case state capital for sunny days), and Alice Springs (central Australia).

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has records of solar radiation day-by-day for years 1990 to 2022. These data sets show that, of these 33 years, 16 have radiation below average and that May, June, and July are the months most likely to risk electricity shortages, ie. blackouts.

Using these data, a new study has calculated the sizes of solar panel and battery which give the least, combined, embodied energy, then calculated the Energy Pay-Back time for Melbourne, (least sunny days capital excepting Hobart), Perth (most sunny days capital), and Alice Springs (central Australia). Full details of the study are available on request.

The results show that:

The Energy Pay-Back time for roof-top solar generation of electricity is 22 to 24 years for Melbourne, 14 to 15 years for Perth, and 14 years for Alice Springs.

For Melbourne, Perth, and Alice Springs, EPBT’s exceed the lifetime of the battery, therefore, batteries have to be replaced twice in the 30-year lifetime of the solar panel.

Accounting for this, the energy embodied in the manufacture and installation of the system is not recovered in the lifetime of the system.

Storage of excess summer generation for practical use requires very large batteries, resulting in unfavourable EPBT.
The following conclusions can be drawn:

Since prior research indicates that solar farms are worse than rooftop solar, solar farms are not a feasible replacement for traditional coal/gas-based electricity generation.

Given equal dollar value eg dollars per kWh, assigned to both input and output electricity, the cost results will echo the energy results, that is to say that the cost incurred in manufacture etc. will not be recovered in the lifetime of the system. Given that, within that lifetime, the batteries would be replaced at additional cost, it follows that electricity generated by the solar system will always be more expensive than the input coal/gas electricity which established the system. Statements by politicians such as, ‘the reason electricity is more expensive now is because we do not have enough renewable energy’ is the reverse of the facts. The more solar generation we have, the more expensive electricity will become.

Subsidies to adjust input and/or output dollar charges do not change the costs. They transfer costs to another element of production, for zero added value. Such subsidies are therefore inherently inflationary.

Continued purchase of solar panels and batteries from low-cost, coal/gas-based producers while, at the same time, inhibiting and closing domestic coal/gas-based electricity, presents national security issues, for no economic or environmental benefit.

Persistence with the widespread installation of PV panels and batteries and closure of coal or gas-fired power stations, will result in greater not lesser emissions of carbon dioxide, higher electricity charges, and higher inflation.

Put simply, Australia mines coal and exports it to China where coal-fired power stations generate electricity, which is used to manufacture PV panels and batteries, which Australia buys and uses to generate electricity from the rays of the sun. In their lifetimes, the solar panels never generate enough usable electricity to replace the coal/gas electricity they originated from.

Reliance on solar combined with closing down coal and gas generation is definitely premature and will lead to power shortages, inflated energy costs, compromised national security, and increased carbon dioxide emissions. Australia would be better off for supply reliability, emissions, costs, and sovereign security, to use coal and gas domestically for electricity generation.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/05/solar-a-risky-waste-of-time-and-money/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************