...Why the change? Because the more people look at climate sensitivity, the less it looks like the IPCC produced a very good “assessment” of it. Virtually the entirety of their reports are premised on a climate sensitivity of around 3.5°C. A much more realistic value is around 2.0°C—a difference so large as to consign most of the IPCC reports to the dustbin of climate history.
In his article “IPCC Bias In Action,” Crok writes:
The IPCC was saddled with a dilemma. A lot of conclusions in the report are based on the output of models and admitting that the models’ climate sensitivity is about 40% too high was apparently too … inconvenient. So IPCC decided not to mention climate sensitivity anymore in the SPM of the Synthesis Report. It decided to give the world a prognosis which it knows is overly pessimistic. One may wonder why. Did it want to hide the good news?
We could hardly have said it better ourselves!
http://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
In his article “IPCC Bias In Action,” Crok writes:
The IPCC was saddled with a dilemma. A lot of conclusions in the report are based on the output of models and admitting that the models’ climate sensitivity is about 40% too high was apparently too … inconvenient. So IPCC decided not to mention climate sensitivity anymore in the SPM of the Synthesis Report. It decided to give the world a prognosis which it knows is overly pessimistic. One may wonder why. Did it want to hide the good news?
We could hardly have said it better ourselves!
http://www.cato.org/blog/you-ought-...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer