Exposing IPCC's Data Manipulation and Climate Policy Bias

Is the IPCC pulling the wool over our eyes with their climate models? Join me, Karl Michael, on the Climate Change Hoax Podcast as we challenge the climate narrative pushed by mainstream media and institutions. We dig into the controversial hockey stick graph and question the legitimacy of the IPCC's selective data use. With insights from Canadian economist Ross McKittrick and critiques from Clintel, we shine a light on the IPCC's questionable reliance on high-emission scenarios and their sidelining of voices like Roger Pielke Jr. This episode dares you to question the accepted norms and rethink global climate policies that might be built on shaky ground.

Hear the story the IPCC doesn't want you to know—their oversight, biases, and how they could be skewing climate policies worldwide. Clintel's comprehensive report exposes the flaws in the IPCC's assessments and calls for a more inclusive approach to climate science. We'll explore how the IPCC's latest report raises the lower boundary for climate sensitivity without justification, potentially misleading policymakers and the public. Discover why Clintel believes a broader range of scientific perspectives is crucial and how the IPCC's current trajectory may not only be flawed but could warrant its dismantling if diverse voices remain excluded. 

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:01

The Climate Change Hoax. If you're suspicious that this climate change stuff may be exaggerated or just total BS, you've come to the right place. Welcome to the Climate Change Hoax Podcast With your host, carl Michael. Here you'll learn the truth about the deceivers who want you to believe we can actually control the weather. We cannot. The real goal is to control you. This is the Climate Change Hoax.

Speaker 2: 0:40

Greetings crisis deniers. In the last episode, I talked about how the IPCC just erases climate history. Here's what I said the IPCC has tried to rewrite climate history by erasing the existence of the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum or Holocene Climate Optimum, which is a warm period between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. The IPCC has basically introduced a new hockey stick graph, which is the result of cherry-picked proxies, as was the first hockey stick trick picked proxies. As was the first hockey stick trick, they have ignored temperature reconstructions that show more variability in the past, such as the well-documented Little Ice Age. Canadian economist Ross McKittrick 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 their models predict a hotspot, which likely indicates some fundamental problems in the way that these models simulate the climate system. A remarkable result of the IPCC AR6 report was the rise of the lower boundary for climate sensitivity, the so-called likely range, which they claim is from 1.5 to 2.5 degrees C. Therefore, the so-called scientists at the IPCC assert that low values for climate sensitivity are now unlikely. Okay, carl, what the hell is climate sensitivity? Well, it's a term, a buzzword, the IPCC uses to express the relationship between human-caused CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases and how that all will affect temperature changes on Earth. Well, our buddies at Clintel claim that the IPCC's rise of the lower boundaries 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 degrees C than above 2.5 degrees C. This also means that the best estimate for climate sensitivity, which the IPCC claims is 3 degrees C, is not justified.

Speaker 2: 3:27

Folks, the IPCC is addicted to its highest emission scenario, the so-called RCP 8.5, or now it's called SSP 5-8.5, which is nothing but another climate modeling claptrap, and in recent years, several papers have demonstrated that this scenario is unlikely and should not be used for policy purposes. Here's the rub Buried inside the Working Group 1 report. The IPCC actually 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 were unaware of the issue. Does the IPCC care? No to the hell. No, they must stay true to their mission as an organization formed for the sole purpose of building the scientific case for humans as the cause of global warming Back in 2010,.

Speaker 2: 4:42

Errors in the Working Group 2 report of the fourth assessment led to the investigation of the IPCC by the Inter-Academy Council, that's, the IAC. This review recommended, amongst other things, that having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step towards ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered. This important recommendation is still being ignored by the IPCC. Even worse, clintel discovered that Roger Pilkey Jr, a scientist with considerable expertise in these areas, is regarded as a kind of Lord Voldemort by the IPCC, and they deliberately avoid mentioning his work or even his name. This is only one of the ways the IPCC leads us to biased conclusions.

Speaker 2: 5:37

Clintel concludes that the IPCC has done a very poor job of assessing the scientific literature and unfortunately, many, if not all, countries rely on the IPCC reports to support their climate policies. And, of course, the liberal, state-sponsored media is all too willing to support whatever the IPCC says. All too willing to support whatever the IPCC says. Clintel's 180-page report titled the Frozen Climate Views of the IPCC shows that this confidence is not justified. In their view, the IPCC should include a broader range of views by inviting scientists such as Roger Pilkey Jr and Ross McKittrick to actively participate in the process of defining the necessary first steps. If, for some reason, such inclusion of different views is unacceptable. The IPCC should be dismantled. Clintel's 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 adapt. Bottom line global warming is far less dangerous to humanity than the IPCC is reporting Cheers.

Speaker 1: 7:11

You've been listening to the Climate Change Hoax. We hope you've enjoyed the show. If you did, make sure to like, rate and review.

Speaker 2: 7:20

See you next time on the Climate Change Hoax.