4.7.IPCC AND THEIR UNLIKELY PHYSICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

«Not only is the Kyoto approach to global warming wrong-headed, the climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal. The IPCC should be shut down». Nigel Lawson393

«In the absence of a critical analysis of results taken at face value and in the absence of any research strategy to remedy the most obvious shortcomings, I believe that the IPCC has exerted an overall negative influence on the development of climate sciences». (Morel, 2013)394

What you pay is what you get, it does also apply to Science. When the conclusion is made before even beginning the work started, because the order getting the grant or the contract was clear, here is what can be read as the first sentence in the introduction of a “climate-science” paper: “Humanity is now the dominant force driving changes of Earth's atmospheric composition and climate (IPCC, 2007a)” (Hansen et al., 2013a). This is simply amazing ! But repeating thousand times an unsubstantiated claim does not make it a truth as far as Science is concerned, politics could be different as Goebbles used to say395, but has James Hansen forgotten his science for his ideology? as Freeman Dyson observed. Psychologists know that with repeated lying, the mind gradually adapts to listen to it, to perceive it and then finally incorporates it into its field of thought. In the case of the great lies of power, it is also a response to fear or insecurity and the AGW creed keeps fueling the fear with uncontrollable sea-level rise that will reshape our coasts and wipe out low lying countries, with supposedly extreme weather events increasing like droughts, floods, tornadoes and even tsunamis and earthquakes for a former French president! (Hollande, 2015b), with agricultural disruptions and bad crops when the opposite is true and CO2 is a great plus increasing plants' yields. The great lies of power offer an understandable explanation of what people don't know or what they don't understand. And as the saying goes, there is nothing so closed as a closed mind, so once the receiver of the message has been well conditioned, whatever the arguments one can bring in order to unravel myths, lies and so forth, the natural defense mechanisms operate and people just dismiss what they consider a new position or explanation that would challenge their beliefs and are victims of some sort of cognitive dissonance.

“This episode is a reminder that the IPCC is, as its founder Maurice Strong had always intended, a political and not a scientific body. It is pursuing a partisan, self-serving and in some respects scientifically disreputable course. It has a direct, financial vested interest in prophesying doom. For if it were to admit what is now becoming apparent, that CO 2 will have a modest, slow and harmless warming effect, and that even if warming were to occur at the predicted rate and cost it would be orders of magnitude more expensive to mitigate today than to adapt the day after tomorrow, governments would – rightly – see no further need to fund it” (Monckton of Brenchley, 2013).

«The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. … The scientific evidence brought up by the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 underlined the importance of climate change as a challenge requiring international cooperation to tackle its consequences. It therefore played a decisive role in leading to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of climate change.»396 .

393https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Lawson 394Quote originally in French, automatically translated with https://translate.google.com/ 395Attributed to Joseph Goebbles “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” 396https://archive.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml

Oslo, 10 December 2007 - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

So the mass has been said since at least 2007, Climate Change is man-made and only «research» providing support to this view is acceptable.

Does that sound like Science?

The way the IPCC operates is well described by Richard S. Courtney397 in a post commenting (Watts, 2013) “The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only exists to produce documents intended to provide information selected, adapted and presented to justify political actions. The facts are as follows. It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with its political summaries. And this is proper because all IPCC Reports are political documents although some are presented as so-called ‘Scientific Reports’. Each IPCC Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published after that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice when prior to the IPCC‘s Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed, «we can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary». This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal (Ball et al., 2011) so perhaps it should, at long last, be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports. Appendix A of the most recent IPCC Report (the AR5) states this where it says «Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis» This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC. The IPCC does NOT exist to summarize climate science and it does not. The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political policies and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”. This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC398. Near its beginning that document says: The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. This says the IPCC exists to provide • (a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” and • (b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.

Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role. This is achieved by amendment of the IPCC’s so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to fulfil the IPCC’s political purpose is achieved by politicians approving the SPM then amending the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports to agree with the SPM. All IPCC Reports including the IPCC AR5 are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e. Lysenkoism.”

The Chapter 8 controversy mentioned by Richard S. Courtney involved the most important part of all IPCC reports, namely, the evidence of a 'human signal'. Chapter 8 didn't have specific evidence of a human signal (May, 2020; Poyet, 2021). The original draft submitted by Santer read: "Finally we have come to the most difficult question of all: When will the detection and unambiguous attribution of human-induced climate change occur? In the light of the very large signal and noise uncertainties discusses in the Chapter, it is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, We do not know».

In the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC the scientists included these three statements in the draft:

• 1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

397https://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney 398http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

• 2. “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.” • 3. “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

The “Summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. As explained before, the rules force the ‘scientists’ to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘Summary’. Those three statements by ‘scientists’ above were replaced with this: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate”. This was done in a way reminded by May (2020) “John Houghton, the lead editor of the entire IPCC WG1 second assessment didn’t care what the authors concluded. He insisted that the young Benjamin Santer change the chapter and bring it into agreement with his summary”. The final politically edited conclusions, released in the May 1996 summary version, were therefore startlingly different and in stark contradiction with the most recent peer-reviewed research of the time (Barnett et al., 1996)399 including Santer's et al. (1995)400 own work that was certainly less assertive. The Chapter 8 lead author, Ben Santer, under Houghton's pressure had excised denials of any scientific evidence of man-made warming, agreed to by all 36 authors of Chapter 8 summarized as “ we have no yardstick against which to measure the manmade effect. If long-range natural variability cannot be established, then we are back with the critique of Callendar in 1938, and we are no better off than Wigley in 1990 ”, replacing them with statements asserting the opposite:«The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate ». (Ball et al., 2011) p 125. The complete story and more is available in the book published by May (2020).

Does that sound like Science?

«The IPCC and those who were chosen to participate were locked in to a conclusion by the rules, regulations and procedures carefully crafted by Maurice Strong. These predetermined the outcome - a situation in complete contradiction to the objectives and methods of science. As evidence grew that the hypothesis was scientifically unsupportable, adherents began defending the increasingly indefensible rather than accept and adjust. The trail they made is marked by the search for a clear human signal, identified in modern parlance as 'smoking guns'. They turned increasingly to rewriting history and producing biased results - thus expanding the gap between what they claimed and what the evidence showed. The main report is then reviewed to make sure it 'aligns' with the summary. Here again is the instruction in the IPCC procedures "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter." Of course, even minor editorial changes can be problematic. In 1995, Chapter 8 lead author Benjamin Santer made such changes to accommodate the SPM to the political - in contradiction to the agreed text». (Ball et al., 2011).

Does that sound like Science?

In fact, and more generally, what happens to those big literature survey compilations leading to the AR-reports? As Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville observes: “they go through bureaucratic reviews where political appointees dissect them line-by-line to glean out the best stuff in support of what IPCC wanted to say in the first place. These cherry-picked items are then assembled and spun into condensed summary reports calibrated to get prime time and front page attention”. Climatologist Hans von Storch (2009) wrote in the Wall Street Journal “What we can now see is a concerted effort to emphasize scientific results that are useful to a political agenda by blocking papers in the purportedly independent review process and skewing the assessments of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The effort has not been so successful, but trying was bad enough”.

Does that sound like Science?

IPCC was also guilty of making a fraudulent claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. IPCC was not paying close enough attention to what reviewers said about the example. That false assertion had prompted great alarm across southern and eastern Asia where glaciers feed major rivers, and while many glacier experts considered it

399“current model estimates of natural variability cannot be used in rigorous tests aimed at detecting anthropogenic signals. ” (Barnett et al., 1996) 400“This analysis supports but does not prove the hypothesis that we have detected an anthropogenic climate change signal. ” (Santer et al., 1995)

preposterous, the IPCC kept it in their report. The way things go is that a baseless scare story is issued, taken for granted and republished from one source to the next without any verification. The first paper from the New Scientist environmental correspondent, Fred Pearce, was published in 1999 and read “All the glaciers in the middle Himalayas are retreating,” says Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, the chief author of the ICSI report. A typical example is the Gangorti glacier at the head of the River Ganges, which is retreating at a rate of 30 metres per year. Hasnain’s four-year study indicates that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035 at their present rate of decline”. From thereon, another scaremonger specialist, the WWF, published in 2005 its report, An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China and cited former Pearce’s article: “The New Scientist magazine carried the article “Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities” in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”. The article also predicted that freshwater flow in rivers across South Asia will “eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages”. As if all these deception techniques were not enough, in 2007 IPCC cherry picks the WWF deception “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)”. In fact, it appears that Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain worked for a research company headed by none other than IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. IPCC author Marari Lai admitted the reason for including it to the Daily Mail, " We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action".

No wonder that Rajendra Pachauri, a railroad engineer who led the IPCC for more than 13 years with no knowledge whatsoever in Earth sciences, would support or even organize these inept deceptions. Pachauri did not know what any 14-year-old schoolboy following a course in geography does, i.e. that it is not glacier melt-water that enables irrigated farming in the densely populated plains of India, Bangladesh, Burma, the Indochinese peninsula and China. With the exception of the high valleys with low densities, it is the monsoon that sets the rhythm of the agricultural calendar, determines the crops and conditions the irrigation systems. The monsoon is the source of the flow of between 80 and 90% of the large rivers in the Himalayas. Furthermore, it is not one-sixth of the world's population that is concerned as Rajendra Pachauri asserted, because that would correspond to the entire population of the Indian Union. There are of course not 1.1 billion inhabitants in the cities and countryside of the Ganges and Brahmaputra basins. Such an ignorant leadership could not show better the political nature of the IPCC.

Does that sound like Science?

The IPCC is not a person, it is a NGO associated with the UN and the WMO and made up of people who voluntarily associate with it because they find it in their professional and personal interests to do so. The most common factor in my reading of what is published by the IPCC is not science but politics with a hidden but intended ideological objective, i.e. socialistic public policy. While the underlying reasons for the individuals to participate may vary, the public policy implications they draw always converges on the same socialistic goals: bigger government, less personal freedom, less prosperity, lower personal energy usage. This is made far worse by the grant-making process they control in what research gets funded and what does not. It is reinforced by the AGW community reaction targeting scientists who accept funding from third parties who do not accept the AGW theory. Because IPCC's members ideology is more reliable than their research, the IPCC is a means to an end, a socialistic end.

Does that sound like Science?

Furthermore, IPCC has been doomed by conflicts of interests which instead of being solved by resorting to better and rigorous procedures have been deeply ingrained into the organization even though many people demurred401, e.g. (Gray, 2008), (McKittirck, 2011), (Bell, 2011). McKitrick (2011) reminds the case of the infamous IPCC’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) accompanied by a press release on the May 9 th (2011) stating that “Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows” This claim originated in a report jointly published by Greenpeace and a renewable energy industry lobby group, the author of which had subsequently been selected by the IPCC to be a Lead Author for the SRREN!

401inter alia, Singer 1998, Michaels and Balling 2000, 2009, Essex and McKitrick 2002, Boehmer-Christensen and Kellow 2002,

Lawson 2008, Plimer 2009, Montford 2010, Carter 2010, Laframboise 2011, Johnson 2012

Does that sound like Science?

Former National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz detailed his objections to that kind of illegitimate rewrite that were reported before in a June 12, 1996 Wall Street Journal article titled "A Major Deception on Global Warming" (Seitz, 1996). He commented that "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report". Dr. Seitz is certainly not alone in questioning the politicization of IPCC processes. The U.K. House of Lords' "Scientific and Economic Analysis Report" prepared for the July 2005 G-8 Summit stated, "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations". The InterAcademy Council, an Amsterdambased association of the world's leading academic national science academies has concluded that a "fundamental reform" of IPCC's management structure is needed. In a report released on August 30, 2010 following a review of practices and methodologies leading to the IPCC's latest 2007 report, the Council found two types of errors. Its chairman, Harold T. Shapiro, stated that, "One is the kind where they place high confidence in something where there is little evidence. The other is where you make a statement …with no substantive value"

Does that sound like Science? And this sort of activity warrants a Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC (along with Al Gore) that same year?

Finally, (IPCC, 2013) dubbed here the “Unlikely Physics of Climate Change” demonstrate an amazing way to practice Physics. (IPCC, 2013) states that “the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. Assessed likelihood is typeset in italics, e.g., very likely (see Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details)”.

This is truly an incredible way to practice any scientific discipline. A mathematical demonstration is not likely or unlikely, a physical phenomenon is not likely or unlikely it does exist or not and one has a decent representation of it so that he/she can compute something meaningful with this representation or not, e.g. by using Kepler's laws one can compute orbits, it is not a question or not of knowing how likely one can compute an orbit with Kepler's laws. Since there are 1732 occurrences (!) of the word or sub-word “likely” in this IPCC 2013 document, which means that it discusses more or less likely conjectures, some less likely than others which could be already not very likely and makes them less than less likely and as there are also 190 occurrences of the word “unlikely”, which means that 190 times in this document were discussed unlikely or even more than unlikely conjectures, one certainty is: it is very unlikely that this document shares any relationship with normal science.

This 'Unlikely Physics of Climate Change (IPCC, 2013)' has got a copycat of that strange sort of physics available in USGCRP (2017) 'Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I' with even more puzzling sub-divisions (Fig. 2, p.7) and the same kind of baseless affirmations all along and similar deceptions, including for example the falsely accelerated rate of SLR. One can wonder why, in order to sort of duplicate the available IPCC reports with no additional convincing evidence, it was necessary beyond NOAA to mobilize 13 other federal agencies included the DOA, DOC, DOD, DOE, HHS, DOI, DOS, DOT, EPA, NASA, NSF, Smithsonian Institution, and the USAID? The reason was to make mainstream medias claim that “impacts of climate change are intensifying” (Rice, 2018)!

It is on such shoddy, and as seen before sometimes fraudulent science that the UN and their cronies want to undertake some of the worst crimes against humanity ever seen. Depopulation, de-industrialization, de-modernization, forcing billions of people back into preindustrial subsistence can cause disaster of a scale never been seen ever before. Solar and wind power won’t be sustainable to prevent any of that. Cost of electricity and fuel is already causing suffering to poor and middle class people worldwide. That’s billions of people. They won’t die from climate change. They will die from the “solutions” proposed by the UN led social engineering, New World Order, global socialism. There will have to be something like the Nuremberg trial for the engineers of this human disaster in the making.

We all know (or we should) that correlation is not causation and we need to define and test a mechanism of causation to prove cause. No study about climate change has been specifically designed to study cause. Cause is always assumed, never tested. If pressed about the causal mechanism one may hear hand waive references to Fourier, Arrhenius, Tyndall etc. and the classical argument of authority that “everybody knows that” carbon dioxide absorbs Infra Red

Radiations (IRR) and that a glass panel will let visible light in but not IRR out 402. So the IRR absorbed by carbon dioxide supposedly gets “stuck” in atmosphere, staying there until doomsday making atmosphere hotter than it should be, this what was detailed into the “The Greenhouse Mess” section. Even though there’s no glass panels in the sky letting visible light in but not letting IRR out. And that, somehow, will make earth’s surface hotter too, even though nobody can come up with the mechanism of heat transfer from atmosphere to earth’s surface that would make earth’s surface hotter than it should be (and infringe one of the most famous principle of thermodynamics doing so 403, as the air atop the ground, colder than it, cannot warm it).

Even though many prominent scientists have long stressed the need to profoundly reform the IPCC, reporting worrying abuses like former National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz did in Seitz (1996)404, and even though detailed proposals have been made for that, as for example what is suggested by McKitrick (2011), the sad truth is that IPCC has entrenched in a way of running its operations that is entirely politically motivated. The use of scientific evidences is made at will with an established bias only aiming at demonstrating that man-made emissions are responsible of climate-change, which is a denial of any proper scientific principle where the search for the truth requires to investigate all possible causes and hypotheses and not pursuing one and unique foregone established conclusion. In doing so, by the very definition of its own mission, IPCC is out of the realm of science and plagued by an inherent design flaw that prevents it of delivering any impartial, independent and scientific contribution. It will become, time showing the scale of the blunder, a sign of its time, of the imprint the bureaucrats left on our societies. Vincent Gray stated from first hand experience in 2007 “IPCC Has Become too blinkered and corrupt to save” (Covington, 2014).

“If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.” Seitz (1996).

The overall objective of IPCC and their unlikely physics of climate change is to come up with every round of report with a supposedly less unlikely signal that they would have managed to more clearly identify through the “attribution processes”. Of course, all that does not bear even a remote relationship with science as was explained and has been constantly refuted by the observations so far demonstrating that nothing stands beyond natural variability which has been at play at all time-scales from decade to million of years.405

In that respect the conclusion of the NIPCC are very telling and Idso et al. (2013) state: “We conclude neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2°C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful. (…) Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of the IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.”

402This is refuted by some authors with the following reasoning Godwin (2020) “Glass absorbs and emits. Emissions are isotropic, half get emitted out of the greenhouse and half back in. That gets absorbed by the ground and re-emitted. Once again half goes out and half back in which is now a quarter of the incident packet of radiation. It is exponential and takes just 30µsecs for all of the incident packet to escape the greenhouse”. For the way CO2 molecules get 'deactivated' see also Geuskens (2019). 403Harde (2013) diverges on that point stating that “Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation and no heat. Therefore, in the same way, as radio waves can propagate from a colder antenna to a warmer receiver, microwaves can be absorbed by a hot chicken,..., so any back radiation from colder and higher atmospheric layers can be absorbed by the lower and warmer layers, and this back radiation can also be absorbed by a warmer surface of the earth without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As long as the surface is assumed to be a black or gray absorber, it does not filter any frequencies of the incoming radiation, in the same way as it does not reject any frequencies of the broad Planck spectrum of a thermal radiator, independent, if it has a higher or lower temperature than the earth. Radiation converts to heat after an absorption, followed by an emission in accordance with a newly adjusting thermodynamic equilibrium, which only requires that the net energy transfer is in balance” 404Bolin was quick to pretend in the WSJ, 23rd July, 1996 that “The changes made followed the clear decision at Madrid to accept the draft chapter subject to its modification to improve its presentation, clarity and consistency...”. Consistency means re-writing to match delegates politically motivated positions. This is clearly a dialog of the deaf. 405A copycat of that strange sort of physics is available in USGCRP (2017) “Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate

Assessment, Volume I” with even more puzzling sub-divisions (Fig. 2, p.7) and the same kind of baseless affirmations all along and similar deceptions, including for example the falsely accelerated rate of SLR. One can wonder why, in order to sort of duplicate the available IPCC reports with no additional convincing evidence, it was necessary beyond NOAA to mobilize 13 other federal agencies included the DOA, DOC, DOD, DOE, HHS, DOI, DOS, DOT, EPA, NASA, NSF, Smithsonian Institution, and the

USAID? The reason was to make mainstream medias claim that “impacts of climate change are intensifying” (Rice, 2018)!

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science reveals a scientific community deeply uncertain about the reliability of the IPCC’s computer models, its postulates, and its interpretation of circumstantial evidence.”

Why would NIPCC scholars Idso et al. (2013, 2015, 2019) be less credible than IPCC researchers and all governmental and NGO's workers who re-frame their studies to the sole avail of dubiously demonstrating man-made responsibility in a minute warming that started long before anthropogenic emissions became significant and observed since the end of LIA, and who make their bread and butter of the climate scare story?

One of the most shocking observation is that IPCC deny all evidences that refute their flawed theory:

• Never show any IR spectrum of the atmosphere as one would see that doubling [CO2] has next to no effect; • Hide the total absence of relationship between man-made emissions and annual ppm increases at MLO; • To cancel the visible fact that the UAH MSU temperature series is perfectly correlated once shifted by 6 months with the ppm yearly increase, the IPCC decided to average the data over 5 years. This of course makes disappear the correlation and the proof that the ppm increase are correlated with the temperature and degassing of the tropical oceans and not the man made emissions; • The natural variability is systematically dismissed by IPCC including natural cycles (60 years, etc.) and expertreviewers requests demanding to make it appear are dismissed. IPCC, also select PMOD instead of ACRIM solar reconstructions to justify unsustainable low TSI variability; • The lag of several months of the emissions with respect to the temperature that shows that CO 2 cannot be the cause is always hidden; • The increased Outgoing Long Wave emission at the Top Of the Atmosphere is hidden as, in itself, it refutes the entire AGW theory; • To enforce credence into a 280 ppm level before industrial age, IPCC dismissed all previous chemical measures made between 1812 and 1959 as reported by Beck (2006, 2007, 2008) and substituted ice-core derived values, from proxies, but stomatal studies from Wagner et al. (1999; 2002) and Kouwenberg (2004) and Kouwenberg et al. (2005) confirm that high variability was the norm over the entire Holocene [CO 2] quickly reacting to changing temperature (not the other way round) as for the 8.2kyr event and that the IPCC enforcement of a 280 ppm stable pre-industrial value is at best flawed or even deceptive.

With regards to the last point of the previous list of IPCC's denials and addressing the chemical accuracy obtained by these methods during the 1812-1959 period mentioned in note 218 p. 192, one should observe that these techniques were used in various fields, including biolochemistry where the precision was sufficient to reliably measure the oxidation of a few nanomoles of a substrate such as malate by a suspension of mitochondria. For a Warburg 406 cell of about 40 cm3 the precision is considerable and it is difficult to question the measurements made even in the 19th century with "home-made" soda. It was not until the end of the 19th century that soda ash was produced after electrolysis of molten sea salt, producing chlorine and sodium metal. This technique developed by Warburg was supplanted by the oxygraphs which, with the help of a Clark electrode, no longer measured the production of CO 2 but the disappearance of oxygen in the biological reaction medium. In biology, it is all the more interesting as it is possible to follow the oxidation of a substrate marked with 14C during a respiration process by counting the 14C released in the form of CO2 and trapped by the soda. The same approach was used by Levin407 and Straat (1976) when they designed the labeled release (LR) experiment408 for the Viking landers on Mars in 1976 using L/D alanine and L/D lactate substrate leading to the final claim for the discovery of an extant microbial life on Mars by Levin (1997), Bianciardi et al. (2012), and Levin and Straat (2016). Even more importantly, it was by this approach that most of the tricarboxylic acid cycle was set up and finally elucidated by Hans Krebs409 see Berkaloff et al. (1976) p. 112, a student of Otto Warburg, during the 1930s to 1960s, although the use of radioisotopes was not introduced until many years later. It is therefore futile to question the measurements of atmospheric CO2 made with these "old techniques" which have nevertheless allowed considerable progress in many scientific fields and enabled Krebs to earn to a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1953. As early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, various laboratories were using the same technique as that used in Warburg's respirometers. An air sample was collected in a closed container that could be connected to a simple

406https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg Otto Heinrich Warburg, was the sole recipient of the Nobel Prize in

Physiology or Medicine in 1931. In total, he was nominated for the award 47 times over the course of his career. 407https://www.gillevin.com/ 408https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_lander_biological_experiments 409https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Krebs_(biochemist) Sir Hans Adolf Krebs

system for measuring the change in volume, such as a thin graduated U-tube partially filled with water. Soda was then injected into this container, the following reaction describing the capture of CO2 by the soda: 2 NaOH + CO2 ⇒ Na 2 CO3 +H 2 O (185)

Between 1812 and 1961 more than 90,000 direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 have been carried out in the world in Asia, Europe and North America in about 50 study stations using this very precise volumetric method. The measurements showed atmospheric CO2 levels ranging from 290 to 440 ppmv (parts per million by volume) with an average of 335 to 348 ppmv. The IPCC has always firmly refused to take an interest in this treasure trove of data, which nevertheless exists in the archives of the analysis observatories and decided that pre-industrial values were to be set at 280 ppm arbitrarily based on ice-core proxies as this value fits their agenda. This dismissal of the chemical measurements is one of which leads to the more vindicated attacks by the IPCC's activists, and I experienced myself extremely violent, sneaky and obnoxious aggressions over Researchgate's discussion forums for having durst mentioned these techniques, measurements and fraudulent fate IPCC has reserved for them.

Does that sound like Science?