Professor Bob Carter Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne

1. Why does theNIPCC matter? Professor Bob Carter Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne International Climate Science Coalition Dali’esquescience Heartland ICCC-9 Mandalay Bay Las Vegas July 9th, 2014 Why is this? Salvador Dali – 1931 - The Persistence of Memory - MoMA

2. Four things to know about the IPCC 1. A RESTRICTED BRIEF The Framework Convention on Climate Change (1994, Article 1.2) refers to: “A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”. ‘RajendraPachauri,in The Guardian, Sept. 20, 2013 “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do.” “If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.” 2. A POLITICAL BODY

3. Four things to know about the IPCC IPCC Statements on Global Warming, 1990-2013 The observed [20th century temperature] increase could be largely due to …. natural variability. IPCC, 1st AR, 1990 The balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate. IPCC, 2nd AR, 1996 There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. IPCC, 3rd AR, 2001 Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely [>90% probable*] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. IPCC, 4th AR, 2007 It is extremely likely [>95% probable*] that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature since the 1950s. IPCC, 5th AR draft, 2012 3. INCREASING ALARMISM 4. HOCUS POCUS SCIENCE

4. HOCUS POCUS SCIENCE The IPCC redefines probability theory 1. A restricted brief3. Increasingly alarmist 2. A political body 4. Hocus pocus science

5. Four things to know about the NIPCC • NIPCC advisory scientists are fully independent • and beholden to nobody; many, being retired, are also highly experienced and knowledgable. • NIPCC activities are funded by untied family foundation donations; no financial conflict of interest exists. • NIPCC summarizes peer-reviewed scientific literature about climate change “in the round”; no a priori assumptions are made about the • importance of particular causatory agents. • NIPCC acts as a Red Team that undertakes due diligence on the conclusionsand recommendations • of the IPCC Green Team.

6. RICHARD FEYNMAN on WHAT IS SCIENCE? Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law”,  The MIT Press, 1965, p. 156. “It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is …. “ "In general, we look for a new law by the following process.   First, we guess it. [HYPOTHESIS] Then we compute the consequencesof the guess to see what would beimplied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of thecomputation to nature, with experimentor experience, compare it directly with observation to see if it works. “If it disagrees with experiment [or observation] it is wrong." Which is why the IPCC’s Dali’esque hypothesis of DAGW is wrong; we need a different paradigm – ANDREW WYETH

7. Christina is most surely a lead member of the climate RED TEAM Andrew Wyeth – Christina’s World – 1948 - MoMA

8. The role of hypothesis testing in science The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly stated, is: Thatdangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions. GREEN TEAM - IPCC toils unceasingly to discover or provide evidence that validatesits hypothesis. The null hypothesis is: Thatcurrently observed changes in global climate, and in the physical and biological environment, result from natural variability. RED TEAM - NIPCC examines all evidence to try to invalidate the null hypothesis. Andrew Wyeth – Christina’s World - 1948 Feynman again – “the first principle is not to fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool” And the problem with the IPCC is that they have not only fooled themselves, but many influential people around the world as well

9. GUARDIAN ANGELS Cristo Redentor Paul Landowski& Heitor da Silva Costa - 1931 Rio de Janiero 40 m high Angel of the North Antony Gormley - 1998 Gateshead, England 54 x 20 m There is another guardian angel that few have observed, Though many have seen the site at which it is erected We humans are a strange slecies– strive for impartiality, but prone to emotionalism – don’t have to be religious to feel the power of Brazil’s famouns statue …..

10. The 2000 Millennium Sculptures – Clemens JöckleWoytek Mt. Hakepa, Pitt Island, Chatham Islands, NZ NIPCC – The guardian of integrity in climate science Team Red ASTRONOMER Questing “They give thought to the creation of heaven and earth” IbnRushd Averroes, 12th C PHILOSOPHER Wisdom Integrity NEWBORN New ideas Future hope MASAI WARRIOR Dignity Strength Millennium TV show in 2000 (ii) 10,000 km to S. America – SIZE ISN’T EVERYTHING

11. The Mediaeval Warm Period SIX IMPORTANT NIPCC CONCLUSIONS • The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the earth had a “more stable” climate issimply wrong. • Climate has always changed, and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, ice volume, sea-level or extreme weather events. • The most likely medium term threat may be of damaging cooling. • Atmospheric CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor the primary forcingagent for temperature change; rather, CO2 is an overall beneficefor humankind. • Attempting to “stop climate change” is an expensive act of utter futility. • The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to adapt to it – both benignwarmings and the more dangerous coolings (cf. earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms). The Little Ice Age

12. The Mediaeval Warm Period SIX IMPORTANT NIPCC CONCLUSIONS • The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the earth had a “more stable” climate issimply wrong. • Climate has always changed, and it always will. There is nothing unusual about the modern magnitudes or rates of change of temperature, ice volume, sea-level or extreme weather events. • The most likely medium term threat may be of damaging cooling. • Atmospheric CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor the primary forcingagent for temperature change; rather, CO2 is an overall beneficefor humankind. • Attempting to “stop climate change” is an expensive act of utter futility. • The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to adapt to it – both benignwarmings and the more dangerous coolings (cf. earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, storms). The Little Ice Age

13. NIPCCprimary conclusions

14. Climate alarmism now in free-fall: Why NIPCC matters “The best and most comprehensive source of alternative scientific views are Heartland Institute’s NIPCC volumes.””Any speaker, any authority, any journalist or bureaucrat asserting the catastrophic danger of supposed man-caused global warming needs to be asked for their response to [NIPCC report] Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, then they are not qualified to address the subject.” Romney's Pending Sellout on Global Warming Peter Ferrara, American Spectator, 3.7.12 http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/reports.html

15. ICEHOUSE CONTEXT 1 – Is late 20th C temperature unusual? The last 6 million years – ODP Sites, Central Pacific Ocean Myth 1: Today’s temperature is unusually warm Myth 2: Before the industrial revolution, climate was “stable” Myth 3: Biodiversity crisis if T goes up 2 deg. C In surface waters WARM equivalent to ~100 C at high latitudes Representing 200,000 climate data points COLD Diagram courtesy Alan Mix, Oregon State University

16. CONTEXT 2 - The late 20th century warming; and CO2 HOLOCENE CLIMATIC OPTIMUM After Professor Ole Humlum, http://www.climate4you.com/

17. WHY SO LITTLE CORRELATION? WHY SO LITTLE CORRELATION? Because above about 150 ppm, climate sensitivity to incremental increases in CO2 is very low. Such increases therefore cause very little further warming. So what sensitivity is assumed by the computer models then?

18. CONTEXT 3 – CO2 AND ALL THAT JAZZ CO2 levels through time 280 ppm (or even 390 or 560 ppm) indicates CO2 starvation compared with the geological past Myth 4 – Atmospheric CO2 is at unusually high levels todayMyth 5 – More CO2 will cause dangerous warming

19. CONTEXT 3 – CO2 AND ALL THAT JAZZ CO2 levels through time

20. The greening (CO2 fertilization) of the planet, 1982-2010 Randall J. Donohue, R.J., McVicar, T.R.,Roderick, M.L. & Farquhar, G.D.CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australia CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments A new study of arid regions around the globe finds that a CO2 “fertilization effect” has caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010. The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10% given the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation.

21. CONTEXT 4 – Computer GCMs EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature June 4th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer Myth 6– That computer models are predictive tools The climate models often get criticised - and it is a valid criticism - that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate. Hansen13-May16-UKParliamentQA.pdf (after Roy Spencer)

22. Walsh, K. et al. 2002 CSIRO Atmospheric Research ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Disclaimer This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On the back of the title page, in bold. HOW NOW for policy? NEXT – scientific technique "Climate Change in Queensland Under Enhanced Greenhouse Conditions" Final Report 1997-2002, 84 pp.

24. CONTEXT 5 – the scope of the “problem” Myth 7 – That cutting western CO2 emissions will make any measurable difference to future temperatures