'Green Dave’ Cameron as much to blame as 'Red Ed’ Miliband for energy crisis

Christopher Booker,Telegraph
"But what few people yet realise is how far this catastrophic mess we are in was not only predictable, but has also been quite deliberately brought about, through the Government’s own policies. Their central aim, though never openly explained, has been twofold. One leg has been to build, by 2020, some 30,000 wind turbines, so ludicrously expensive that we must pay double or treble the market rate for the power they so inefficiently produce. The other leg is that, to make this seem competitive, we should also eventually be made to pay twice the going rate for all other forms of electricity: hence the “carbon tax” on coal and gas, and the colossal price we are to pay for power from Hinkley Point and other new nuclear power stations (four times the cost of nuclear, estimated by a Royal Academy of Engineering study only nine years ago)."

Keenan does AR5

Bishop Hill
"Doug Keenan has written a critique of the IPCC's handling of statistics in AR5. Suffice it to say he is not impressed."

New review paper finds Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were worldwide and warmer than the present

The Hockey Schtick
" We now have substantial evidence that throughout portions of both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, SSTs in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool were essentially equivalent to those of "the late twentieth century," indicating - once again - that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current air temperatures in this critically important region of the globe. "

Commonsense Climate Science and Forecasting after AR5

WUWT
"In the AR5 Summary for Policymakers the IPCC glossed over the developing cooling trend in global temperatures and so lost the last vestige of its scientific credibility and any claim to be a source of useful guidance on future climate trends for policymakers. .....The entire vast UN and Government sponsored AGW behemoth with its endless labyrinthine conferences and gigantic schemes for UN global control over the World and National economies is a prime example of the disasters Eisenhower warned against in 1961.......In plain English this means that they have no idea what the climate sensitivity is and that therefore that the politicians have no empirical scientific basis for their economically destructive climate and energy policies. ....."

IPCC Adjusts Model-Predicted Near-Term Warming Downwards

WUWT
"This is another post that illustrates and discusses just how poorly climate models simulate one of the most important climate variables: global surface temperatures. .....The answer to both questions is, the CLIMATE MODELS CANNOT SIMULATE the multidecadal variations that exist in the surface temperature record....
And it’s well known by the public that the models used by the IPCC are tuned to the upswing that started in the mid-1970s (see Mauritsen, et al. (2012) Tuning the Climate of a Global Model [paywalled]. A preprint edition is here.), while failing to consider the impacts of naturally occurring multidecadal periods of no warming on their long-term (to 2100) prognostications.
Last, as far as I know, the IPCC did not lower their long-term prognostications based on their lower short-term predictions."

How we pay UN bureaucrats to adapt to climate change in comfort

Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun (Australia)

How embarrassing. Our former Labor government was one of the few stupid enough to squander our money on the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund:

Here’s a list of the countries who are both rich and improvident enough to squander their taxpayers’ money on the Green Climate Fund. It’s the usual suspects, my condolences to their citizens who are paying for this:

Australia, $513,000
Denmark, $608,000
Finland, $648,000
France, $326,000
Japan, $500,000
Germany, $1,053,000
South Korea, $2,099,000
Netherlands, $286,000
Sweden, $752,000
UK, $770,000
TOTAL, $7,555,000

The Koreans put in two megabucks … but then, they also negotiated a deal where the Green Climate Fund is headquartered in Seoul. So no tears for them, they’ll make out like bandits.

We were told we had to give this small fortune to the UN to help the poor: ..."

Obama's 'social cost of carbon' is at odds with science & ignores 'social benefits of carbon'

The Hockey Schtick

The Obama administration's latest, greatest weapon to prosecute its war on global warming is something called the "social cost of carbon." It is an instrument honed on ill-founded climate alarm and is readily blunted in the face of the best science.

The social cost of carbon is supposed to be a complete accounting of the market externalities, both positive and negative, resulting from carbon dioxide emissions released by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, or natural gas.

But as its name implies, the government's accounting of the social cost of carbon focuses almost entirely on conjured "costs" while ignoring proven "benefits" of carbon dioxide emissions."

Sat imagery of Bushfires in New South Wales, Australia

WUWT
 From the comments: "Much of Australia’s fire problem caused by loony green laws. Also, the eucalyptus trees there are a pyromaniac’s wet dream. .......62 fires, 287,000 acres total, just a bit larger than the RIM fire (Yosemite) at 257,314. Australia is NOT going up in flames, despite what the media babblers babble. ....What the greens have done is ensure that forests can burn as they used to before they were ‘managed’. It is nothing to do with climate change and all to do with not clearing brush and trying to extinguish every small fire. The result is literally a tinderbox forest just set up for occasional firestorms. .....'The ocean is enveloped in smoke, and it is not visible from any great distance in shore. Bombala, Berry, Kiama, Pambula, and Wynham all complain of the devastation done by high winds and devouring bush fires'.(No, this not a report on the recent fires in NSW by the ABC or Sydney Morning Herald. It is a report from September 14th, 1895) .....Greenies who on the one hand act in council to ban/restrict/resist fire management and clearing, and on the other hand blame global warming should be held responsible for fire damage and be jailed when someone dies in the fires."

It’s Back Again To The Global Cooling Headlines Of The 1970s … Climate Science Now Clearly In Total Confusion, Chaos!

NoTricksZone
"If anything has become clear since the release of the IPCC 5th Assessment Report released last month, it is that climate science has collapsed into a state of complete confusion. It is very clear that they now have no idea where the climate is headed and never before has the science found itself in such a state of open dispute."

BBC – Real risk of a Maunder minimum ‘Little Ice Age’

WUWT
"Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24. Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%."

The UK Saint Jude’s Day Storm – just another fall storm in a long line of many

WUWT
"Neither the storm of 2002 or this year’s come anywhere close to the Burn’s Day storm of 1990, or the Great Storm of 1987."

Global warming gets nearly twice as much taxpayer money as border security

Daily Caller
"The White House reported to House Republicans that there are 18 federal agencies engaged in global warming activities in 2013, funding a wide range of programs, including scientific research, international climate assistance, incentivizing renewable energy technology and subsidies to renewable energy producers. Global warming spending is estimated to cost $22.2 billion this year, and $21.4 billion next year. At the same time, the federal government will spend nearly $12 billion on customs and border enforcement this year."

Nearly $1 billion a day to change the climate… the invisible vested elephant in the room

JoNova (Australia)
"Here’s a stark statistic that came out last week in a new report: The Climate Industry draws in nearly $1 billion dollars a day. But here’s an ominous combination: … it openly admits that taxpayer money is its “engine-room”. Reading between the lines below, this industry is almost completely dependent on domestic policies that funnel money from citizens to itself, and tilts the playing field — without those policies, it can’t attract much private money. That is, it can only get money at least partially by coercion, people won’t give it money purely voluntarily. These same groups want even more — they want the public to take the risks too. What could possibly go wrong? .....OK. I scoff, but most of the people working in this — the accountants, marketers, lawyers, the odd engineer– are doing a hard day’s work. But in the end, together, this generates the most highly leveraged kind of lobbying machine. Without government policies hoping to change the weather, the industry collapses. That is not like big-oil. If the government stopped subsidizing car manufacturers, people would just import cars from overseas. If the government made the outrageous move of banning all new fossil-fuel cars, everyone would just keep driving their old one. Modern cars don’t need government subsidies to work, and big-oil doesn’t need government policies to sell oil — but windmills and solar panels certainly do."

Claim: Last 100 years may be warmest in 120,000 years in the Arctic, but not so fast

WUWT
"Of course the uncritical MSM is already trumpeting this story without question, with the usual bent that the posited current warmth is a bad thing. What really bugs me (besides the fact the press release can’t even bother to mention the title of the study) is the use of the word “unprecedented” in the title of the press release. Obviously this isn’t true, because it had to be warm enough, long enough, back then to give these mosses a chance to get a foothold and grow. If the warmth today was “unprecedented” they’d find nothing in the way of previous life forms under the receding ice."

Gosh, what could possibly be responsible for the shocking rise in energy prices?

Telegraph
"Today's big story has been Scottish and Southern Electricity's announcement that its energy prices are to rise three times faster than the rate of inflation. Gosh: and why could that be, I wonder? What fascinates me is the concerted efforts made by both the Coalition and Labour to pretend that it has nothing to do with the cost of implementing the lunatic green policies to which LibLabCon remain wedded in defiance of economic and scientific reality."

Warmists burn a billion a day

Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun (Australia)
"What that cash could do if spent on something worthwhile:
The world invested almost a billion dollars a day in limiting global warming last year, but the total figure – $359 billion – was slightly down on last year, and barely half the $700 billion per year that the World Economic Forum has said is needed to tackle climate change.

Fuddites

E M Smith
"FUD is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. A term applied to the IBM strategy used to push folks away from perfectly reasonable alternative products. Luddites were folks opposed to progress. I’m coining a new term, Fuddites, to describe the attitude of the Global Warming Cabal. This posting just explains it. ......FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor’s product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival."

Andrew O’Keefe misleads the Channel Seven audience about global warming and the fires

Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun (Australia)
"Channel Seven host Andrew O’Keefe is a global warming alarmist who seems to think having the right attitude means not having to bother with things like research."

Hottest September Ever in records going back 0.000003% of Earths history!

JoNova (Australia)

We are tying ourselves in knots over 150 year old records (or even less) when:

1. These are just short Australian records, not long global ones. Even in the 1800′s Australia recorded heatwaves of 50+ degrees.
2. The world was similarly warm 1,000 years ago, definitely warmer 7,000 years ago, and a lot warmer 120,000 years ago.
3. The world has been warmer for most of the last 500 million years.
4. Satellites are more reliable, have better coverage, and don’t have dubious inexplicable adjustments. They show it was not a record angry summer, nor the hottest year we’ve had.

Fires not due to climate change: expert

Climate Change Dispatch
"Linking the bushfire disaster in NSW to climate change is "an absolute nonsense" and reducing fuel loads in the Australian bush is urgently needed, a leading scientist says. Retired Monash University researcher David Packham says global warming is a gradual process which doesn't explain major bushfires."

The Oceanic Central Heating Effect

WUWT
"In my previous essay We Must Get Rid of the Carboniferous Warm Period I discussed the role of the polar seas around Antarctica in generating the cold dense oxygenated marine water that dominates the abyssal ocean depths of our modern world. I now want to discuss the role of shallow tropical seas in generating warm dense oxygen-poor marine water and how this fundamental and often overlooked process explains the presence of abyssal ocean warm water and high atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during previous geological times, in particular the Cretaceous period."

Antarctic Sea Ice Didn’t Get The Memo That It Was Supposed To Melt

WUWT
"By WUWT Regular Just The Facts Per the graph above, Antarctic Sea Ice Extent has remained above the 1981 – 2010 “normal” range for much of the last three months and the current positive Antarctic Sea Ice Extent anomaly appears quite large for a planet supposedly on the verge of Dangerous Warming. Furthermore, in 2013 we had the third most expansive Southern Sea Ice Area measured to date; ..."

'Mini-nukes’ beat monster wind farms on every count

Christopher Booker,Telegraph
"As the shambles of Britain’s energy policy and soaring bills continues to make shock headlines, many in the south-west of England are staring in angry amazement at plans by foreign-owned firms to build two of the largest offshore wind farms in the world just off their coastlines. ......The combined contribution of these two gigantic wind farms, at a capital cost of £7.6 billion and earning subsidies of £620 million a year, will average 750MW – less than that of the single unsubsidised gas-fired power station recently built in Plymouth at a capital cost of £1 billion. ....Two American firms, backed by the US Department of Energy, are now well advanced in developing factory-built “mini-nuclear power plants”, wholly safe and offering a mouthwatering range of advantages over their competitors. The mPower company in North Carolina is developing a two-reactor nuclear power station covering just 40 acres, but capable of generating 360MW round the clock: more than would be produced by the Navitus Bay wind farm at less than two-thirds of the price, and occupying only one 1,200th of the same area. These could be installed on old power station sites next to the grid, and the company tells me that they should be commercially available within nine or 10 years, much sooner than that monster at Hinkley Point. .... And anyone worried about the safety of siting these mini-reactors conveniently near to cities should remember that for 50 years, Rolls-Royce has been running a small nuclear reactor right next to Derby County football ground. As yet, not a single death has been reported."

Maybe That IPCC 95% Certainty Was Correct After All

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
"So, about 95% (actually, 96.7%) of the climate models warm faster than the observations. While they said they were 95% certain that most of the warming since the 1950s was due to human greenhouse gas emissions, what they meant to say was that they are 95% sure their climate models are warming too much.
Honest mistake. Don’t you think? Maybe?"

Review paper finds the Medieval Warm Period was worldwide and warmer than the present

The Hockey Schtick
"A new review paper from SPPI and CO2 Science concludes "that earth's current level of warmth need not be attributed to the current high level of the air's CO2 content; for the peak warmth of the global Medieval Warm Period was even greater than it has been over the past couple of decades, and at a time when the air's CO2 concentration was approximately 100 ppm less than it is today, which suggests that whatever phenomenon was responsible for the warmth of the Medieval Warm Period could also be responsible for the [current warm period]."

Petermann Glacier Has Grown 3km Since 2010

Real Science
"In 2010, our friends got hysterical about a block of ice which calved off the Petermann Glacier in Greenland. Since then, the glacier has grown 3km."

It’s showdown time for our insane 'green’ energy policy

Christopher Booker,Telegraph
Politicians are complaining about rises in fuel bills that are largely the result of their own actions
" What the BBC and everyone else seemed to miss was the small print in which National Grid insisted that the lights wouldn’t be going out, because it now has “the tools” to cover any shortfall. One reason for its confidence was the story reported here before, of how National Grid has been quietly signing up thousands of diesel generators, linked by computers to the grid, which can be automatically switched on at a moment’s notice to cover for any power shortage. And their main purpose, although National Grid tries to deny it, is to make up for the unreliability of that ever-increasing number of heavily subsidised wind farms the Government wants to see built, in its efforts to “de-carbonise” our electricity supply.
Although National Grid may try to keep quiet about it, the companies piling in to sign up for this scheme – attracted by the colossal sums it is offering to build up its “Short Term Operating Reserve” – make no secret on their websites and planning applications of the fact that it is designed to cover for the disastrous intermittencies of wind power. Even National Grid admits that, within six years, it hopes to have expanded its emergency reserve from 3.5GW to 8GW, equivalent to the output of four large conventional power plants. This is why firms such as Green Frog, Fulcrum Power and Power Balancing Services are pouring millions into building “mini-power stations” – container parks full of diesel generators – to qualify for “availability payments” so lavish that, in proportion, that they make the subsidy bonanza enjoyed by wind-farm operators look like chicken feed."

Precedented Warming in Antarctica

sunshine hours
"Warmists like to claim warming in every part of the world is unprecedented. This paper says just the opposite. Warming has been more dramatic in the 1700s and 1800s than today."

It Is Worse Than It Seems!

Real Science
"Seth Borenstein, who originally warned us about the 2012 ice-free Arctic, says that temperatures are going to go off scale around noon on July 23, 2047. .......There is no basis for alarm, and no basis for claiming that temperatures are going “off scale.” These people are complete frauds. The models have failed miserably and are not an excuse for acceptable science."

NYTimes goes skeptic on end-of-climate-by-2047 study: Based on models with ‘acknowledged problems’ and uncertain accuracy

Climate Depot
"The NYTimes reports: If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers said Wednesday. Scientists from the University of Hawaii at Manoa calculated that by 2047, plus or minus five years, the average temperatures in each...." For the full and latest scare story from the warmists the Daily Mail has it here. Anything to keep the gravy train going....

The IPCC AR5 – First impressions

Award-winning Israeli Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv
"My main conclusion is that this report is to a large extent a rehash of the AR4 report. However, given the lack of any new evidence pointing to humans and the increasing discrepancy between the alarmist models and predictions, the IPCC authors are bluntly making more ridiculous claims as they attempt to fill in the gap between their models and reality. ......A second important aspect of the present report is that the IPCC is still doing its best to avoid the evidence that the sun has a large effect on climate. They of course will never admit this quantifiable effect because it would completely tear down the line of argumentation for a mostly manmade global warming of a very sensitive climate." (h/t Climate Depot)

Just Making Stuff Up As They Go Along

Real Science
"You really can’t make this stuff up. Global warming theory has always assumed polar amplification, and now some climate buffoons are claiming the exact opposite."

Washington Times: Climate due to water cycle not carbon dioxide

JoNova also on WUWT
"Yet, the IPCC and today’s climate modelers propose that the “flea” wags “the dog.” The flea, of course, is carbon dioxide, and the dog, is the water cycle. The theory of man-made warming assumes a positive feedback from water vapor, forced by human emissions of greenhouse gases. .......Geologic evidence from past ice ages shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide increases follow, rather than precede, global temperature increases. As the oceans warm, they release CO2 into the atmosphere. Climate change is dominated by changes in the water cycle, driven by solar and gravitational forces, and carbon dioxide appears to play only a minor role."

Climate change 'scientists’ are just another pressure group

Christopher Booker,Telegraph
"Some years back, when I was researching a detailed history of the alarm over global warming, few things surprised me more than to discover just how wildly misleading was the picture given to the world of the IPCC as a genuinely scientific body, dispassionately assessing current knowledge of all the factors shaping our climate. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by a small group of scientists who were already wholly convinced that rising CO2 levels were the prime factor in causing global temperatures to rise. ... Since then the IPCC and its five major reports have essentially been shaped by a surprisingly small, close-knit group of scientists, all similarly dedicated to the cause. They have been determined not just to assemble all the evidence they could find to support their theory, however dubious it might be (as in the case of that notorious “hockey stick” graph); but, as we saw from the Climategate emails, to deride or ignore any that contradicted it. In years to come this will be looked back on as the most astonishing example in history of how the prestige of “science” can be used to promote a particular belief system, in this case with the aid of those skewed computer models that can be seen ever more clearly not to accord with the observed evidence."

The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy

Telegraph
"The story so far: with the release of its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot be taken seriously. Here are a few reasons why: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused it of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence." Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo". The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated – or both; Paul Matthews has found a very silly graph; Steve McIntyre has exposed how the IPCC appears deliberately to have tried to obfuscate the unhelpful discrepancy between its models and the real world data; and at Bishop Hill the excellent Katabasis has unearthed another gem: that, in jarring contrast to the alarmist message being put out at IPCC press conferences and in the Summary For Policymakers, the body of the report tells a different story – that almost all the scary scenarios we've been warned about this last two decades (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely;" and this latest from the Mighty Booker. And there's plenty more where that came from."

Coverage of Extreme Events in the IPCC AR5

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog
" There is really not much more to be said here -- the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus. Of course, I have no doubts that claims will still be made associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change -- Zombie science -- but I am declaring victory in this debate. Climate campaigners would do their movement a favor by getting themselves on the right side of the evidence."

IPCC more confident about greater uncertainty

The Hockey Schtick
"According to an article published today in Science, "Last week's fifth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) might appear to suggest that, in spite of decades of intensive study, scientists haven't made one whit of progress on the biggest question in climate: By how much will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels warm the world? But in fact, climate scientists have greatly tightened constraints on their traditional estimate of how sensitive climate may be to added greenhouse gases." In what universe does widening the range of CO2 climate sensitivity from 2-4.5C in the last IPCC report to 1.5-4.5C in the new report constitute "greatly tightened constraints"?

IPCC snaps the link between wild weather and global warming

Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
"I’ve noted in an earlier post that the latest IPCC report concedes there is little evidence to link global warming to extreme weather events and even admits its past warnings of more droughts were “overstated”. The report is like watching global warming alarmists swallow a chill pill. "

The climate change fanatics have hijacked the debate

Express
"YOU may not have noticed it (if you’re normal you surely changed channels fast) but last week saw a so-called conference by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Stockholm. I say “so-called” because before it sat a communiqué was issued declaring exactly the conclusion it would come to. This is not science. True science constantly probes, doubts, tests, investigates, examines and welcomes dissent. The IPCC did not invite one single person who did not agree with its pre-decided obsession. Nasty facts (such as the world ain’t getter warmer after all) were swept into oblivion. Most of the attendees were not scientists at all but fanatics, what dear David likes to call swivel-eyed loons. The chairman Rajenda Pachauri is an Indian railway engineer. Even those with a science degree were mainly not climatologists but from other and irrelevant branches of that vast subject. But career-long students of climatology are the only ones worth listening to on this ultra-vague subject – and they seem to be split down the middle. It used to be that you spent staggering sums of public money when something had been proved beyond a scintilla of doubt. Now these sums are being spent on fashionable theories. What really took the cherry was the bland assertion that although Earth’s surface temperatures were not rising there could well be such dangerous warmings in the deepest parts of the ocean. Where we don’t have any monitors. So that’s all right then. Fat budgets all round and who needs real evidence? Certainly not the IPCC."

The IPCC’s Totally Bogus 1871 Adventure

Real Science
"According to the IPCC, temperatures were cold in 1871, sea level was much lower, glaciers were content and the climate was much more stable. All of this utter nonsense – nothing more than well financed superstition. The same mindless superstition which infected academics in 1871."

Latest IPCC trick: widening uncertainty bands to make models look ok

Climate Depot
"'The observations would appear to be well inside the extremely large grey bands which did not appear in the AR4 and which have the rather interesting feature of showing zero uncertainty in 1990. So, the question is: What are those bands?'

Helping the IPCC with decadal trend graphs

The Hockey Schtick
"The IPCC AR5 has a new "decadal average" graph designed to hide the statistically insignificant global warming over the past 20 years. Since nobody wants to be accused of cherry-picking starting dates and using a decadal average instead of a decadal trend line, let's graph the decadal linear trends for each starting year since 1988. This paints a quite different picture than the IPCC decadal average graph, showing a clear halt in "decadal average" and "decadal trend" global warming starting at the beginning of the 21st century."

Art Horn: IPCC Is Very Confident That They Are Not Sure

GWPF
"What they are saying is that they are 95% sure that humans are the dominant cause of global warming but that they are so unsure of how the climate system reacts to increases in carbon dioxide, they can’t give us an “estimate” of how much global warming it causes. Yea, that inspires confidence for sure. Based on that “high level of confidence” we should abandon what works (fossil fuels) and gamble our future and prosperity on so called “renewables” that can’t survive without massive government support."

IPCC: Fixing the Facts

Climate Audit
"The new IPCC graphic no longer cites an AR4 figure. Instead of the envelope presented in AR4, they now show a spaghetti graph of CMIP3 runs, .......None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers."

Kill the IPCC says Judith Curry. After decades and billions there is nothing to show for it.

JoNova (Australia)
"Kill the IPCC: After decades and billions spent, the climate body still fails to prove humans behind warming .......The IPCC is in a state of permanent paradigm paralysis. It is the problem, not the solution .......In its latest report released Friday, after several decades and expenditures in the bazillions, the IPCC still has not provided a convincing argument for how much warming in the 20th century has been caused by humans."

Why Climate Science is Fallible

WUWT
"Peer review is a highly unreliable process that produces nothing but opinion. A study conducted in 2010 concluded that reviewers agree “at a rate barely exceeding what would be expected by chance.” Furthermore, the peer review process may be, and usually is, cynically manipulated. Scientists aggregate in social cliques that facilitate orthodoxy and suppress dissent. When manuscripts are submitted for review authors are commonly asked to suggest reviewers. Invariably these tend to be acquaintances holding the same views. Thus peer review often amounts to pal review. Neither does peer review detect fraud. In 2011, Tilburg University in the Netherlands suspended psychologist Diederik Stapel for publishing at least 55 scientific research papers based on fabricated data."

EPA mandates that new coal plants prevent nonexistent climate problem with unavailable solution

Junk Science
"And just why did EPA ever think they needed a nonexistent solution in the first place? Very simply, because the IPCC told them so…even though their own internal study on the matter concluded otherwise."