The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) perpetuates the deception that they examine all causes of climate change. They only examine human causes, which you can’t identify if you don’t know or understand natural causes.
They tacitly acknowledged the problem by widening the definition in the 2007 Report, but little changed.
Studying human impact excludes anything outside the terrestrial system. They cynically included the Sun in their list of human forcing mechanisms (Figure 1), but then only studied variations in insolation (electromagnetic radiation) thus excluding other solar and astronomic changes.
Old-School Science:
1) suppose a theory of how something works
2) come up with ideas to test this theory
3) check test results against theory
4) if successful – invite others to repeat your test and think up other tests
5) freely publish all your data, methods, and computer code
IPCC/UN “Science”:
1) find something ‘big’ we can blame on humans
2) create and/or filter data to support #1 above
3) hide and/or obfuscurate your data, methods, and computer code
4) create disaster scenarios if “we don’t do something” right now
5) demand money and power to ‘fix’ the “human caused” problem
6) ALWAYS use ad hominem attacks and denigration against anyone even intimating you’re wrong while not actually scientifically refuting their claims
7) rinse, repeat
As far as I can determine from the many researches, once you take away the natural signatures of PDO, ADO, solar cycles, orbital variances, axial tilt/wobble changes, etc. effects on world climate, the temperature signature left that one can attribute to humans is below the threshold of the signal to noise of the data itself. But then, that’s a) not scary, and b) not good for fund raising. Silly me.
The 60 year cycle is pretty obvious in ENSO. So the modellers would probably do better having such a signal included. But they can’t afford to since half of the temperature rise since 1970 was due to this cycle.
Their models might then work better but their global warming modelling budgets would be much smaller.
Yep.
a) It’s just not scary enough.
b) They wouldn’t have job raking in lots of our money.