return to speeches list

Critique of the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers

Seminar given by Des Moore on October 9, 2013 to Economic Society of Victoria

Full copy of talk available as downloadable PDF
Full copy of supporting graphs available as downloadable PDF

Today I presented the above critique of the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers (published on 27 September) to a seminar at the Economic Society of Victoria. The seminar was chaired by the current President of the Society, Professor Rodney Maddock and attended by about 20. Professor Maddock indicated at the outset that he had experienced some resistance to holding a seminar on “IPCC claims are proven false?” but had taken the view that the Society should be prepared to have open discussions/debate on economic issues of public interest.

Valuable assistance was provided by physicist Dr Tom Quirk, who constructed the graphs (see also above) which were circulated to attendees and participated actively in the discussion after my presentation. The revelations from his recent research also played an important role, including that showing average temperatures as having been significantly overstated by public agencies and that the IPCC has also overstated the extent of CO2 concentrations.

My critique repeats some of the analysis used in my presentation, made before the IPCC report was published, to The Australian Club on Why Global Warming Does Not Threaten Dangerous Temperatures. That analysis has now been combined with  criticisms of the IPCC report. In particular:

• The absurdity of the claim that the IPCC is now more certain that human activity has caused increases in temperatures than it was in its fourth report in 2007 despite (inter alia) the predictive failure of its extensive modeling;
• The remarkable claim that temperatures would have increased by more than the published figures between the early 1950s and the pause since 1997 if only a  range of temporary influences had not kept temperatures down. This assertion has been accompanied by the claim that the IPCC’s “long term” modeling “agrees with the observed trend” ie it seems to have invented a temperature increase that fits with its modeling;
• The attempt in the IPCC report to (unconvincingly) “explain” the pause from 1998-2012 leaves largely unexplained several other periods when changes in temperatures seem  little related to increases in CO2 concentrations. These include the longer pause in temperatures (actually a slight decline) from 1948 to 1977;  despite past assertions that warming started with Western “industrialisation”, the very small increase in temperatures (as published by the Hadley Centre)  from the mid 19th century to 1920; the absence of any explanation for the “jump” in temperatures from the early 1920s to the late 1940s when CO2 concentrations increased by only just over 3 per cent over about 25 years.
• In essence the IPCC’s dangerous warming thesis appears largely to be based on the increase in temperatures that occurred over the 1977 to 2000 period. But this increase was due primarily to natural causes in the form of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation when cold water along the western Pacific coast of North America was suddenly replaced by warm water.
• Overall, and contrary to the report’s claim, it is difficult to see that temperatures are at all sensitive to changes in CO2 concentrations. >While the IPCC predicts more frequent hot and fewer cold days, and more extreme precipitation events, there are no predictions of increases in droughts or floods;
• Although sea levels are predicted to increase at a faster rate during the 21st century, at the recent rate of increase that would not  prevent moderate protective action by most property owners over time;
• The extent of ice in the Arctic sea is predicted to continue decreasing but  no reference is made to the lower levels which have occurred in the past when CO2 emissions were much lower or to the fact that meltings in the Arctic do not add to sea levels because the ice there is already in the sea;
• The report acknowledges that the total ice area in the Antarctic has been increasing but does not mention that satellite data shows a distinct cooling of the Antarctic region over the past 30 years.

My general conclusion is that governments should not be acting to reduce usage of fossil fuels or to subsidise the use of renewable energy sources. Further, given that there is little prospect of any binding international agreement between major emitters to reduce emissions, Australia should cease reducing its international competitiveness by adding to costs either directly or through the imposition of higher taxation to finance anti-emissions measures

Des Moore

Full copy of talk available as downloadable PDF
Full copy of supporting graphs available as downloadable PDF

return to speeches list