IPCC AR6 Report Review

OPPS-16 Despite the many references to data I use in this post, I have chosen to categorize the post as political. As such, any opinions expressed are mine alone (but they seem to be consistent with many of the knowledgeable climate scientists on the planet). The AGW specialists that populate the IPCC may disagree (or do they(?)). But quite frankly I do not care. The IPCC is a politically dominated organization and their documents reflect the unelected, unaccountable, corrupt political pressures that the UN (and their allied forces) demand of them.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

But even those IPCC AGW specialists have recently sounded an alarm. The “models are running hot” statement is no longer limited to the climate skeptic/realist side of the discussion. The IPCC programmers, along with Gavin Schmidt (NASA/GISS) have provided public statements saying there are problems with the models. The very same models that most of the IPCC AR6 report is dependent on. It is hard to have confidence in the building (the AR6 Report) when the builders (the IPCC AGW Specialists) are casting doubts on the foundation and the subsequent building blocks (the Computer Models). The IPCC AR6 Report should have been delayed giving the programmers time to fix the problems. Not that they would have changed their narrative much, but they could have at least put forward a coordinated position. Dr. John Christy pointed out the models were running hot a long time ago (using measured satellite temperature data validated with radiosonde (weather balloon) measured temperatures). Dr. Christy updated his evaluation to include the CMIP6 computer protocol in his January 2021 presentation (reviewed in my CSS-6 post). The results, projections that are more erratic and more inaccurate (science(?) in action). The CAGW alarmist crowd, choose to ignore that information and focus on their over-homogenized surface temperature data sets. Unfortunately (for the CAGW alarmist narrative), the ever-increasing over-homogenization is getting harder to justify each year. Maybe adjusting the theory/narrative when the data does not fit that theory/narrative (you know, the scientific method) would have been better than adjusting (i.e.: homogenization) the data to match the narrative (the AGW specialist method). Or they could just use the more accurate measured satellite temperature data (the data validated by radiosonde measurements). One more example of the unscientific principles used by the IPCC and the CAGW alarmist crowd.