An important premise for the Paris Agreement has been changed by an IPCC lead author for IPCC AR6 WGIII on Mitigation

A set of paths to the 1.5 DegC target of the Paris Agreement (2015) are presented in the article by Glen Peters.

However, there is a fundamental problem with the paths: They are not based on the premises that formed the basis for the Paris Agreement.

Publication bias within climate science!

What on earth is happening within science these days?

Here is an article on publication bias that was published in the journal Climatic Change having the title:
“No evidence of publication bias in climate change science”

However, the main body of the article identifies biasing practices.

10 theorems for ideas about how things work

I have been missing a neat summary of Karl Popper´s scientific method. I have also been thinking, that a neat set of theorems representing his method would be useful. Both as a guide for development and scrutiny of ideas, but also to be able to reveal weaknesses in any idea claimed to represent the truth. This is my summary of Popper´s method into a neat set of theorems.

2016 Court order on unethical behavior in US Department Of Justice

Make place in history for honorable judge Andrew Scott Hanen.

The man who had the cojones to rule that United States Attorney general Loretta Lynch will have to take steps to ensure that the Office of Professional Responsibility effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.

Kudos.

The hypothesised cloud feedback – alone – is of comparable size to the current global warming!

Have you ever wondered how strong the hypothesized cloud feedback is, compared to the net surface warming?

Hang on – in about 2 minutes you will know.

As the cloud feedback is equal to the current global energy accumulations, it follows that the sum of all other terms in the radiation budget must be zero. Hence, IPPC seem to be wrong, either about their central estimate for cloud feedback or about the rest of their radiation budget.

IPCC got all bets covered!

IPCC covers a wide range of possible warming of the oceans from 0 – 2000 m, but don´t provide a best estimate.

IPCC can´t possibly miss!

This post contains relevant figures, references to the IPCC report, step by step calculations and link to a spread sheet with easy to follow calculations of:
– The deduced amount of warming
– The observed amount of warming

How to avoid being proven wrong!

“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible”
– Karl Popper

IPCC don´t even know how to quantify uncertainty!

Simply put, the result of an estimate should be reported by:
– giving a full description of how the measurand Y is defined
– stating the result of the measurement as Y = y ± U and give the units of y and U
– giving the approximate level of confidence associated with the interval y ± U and state how it was determined;

The IPCC report is a monument over inductivism!

“The degree of certainty in key findings is based on the author teams’ evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence. (from very low to very high)

Confidence in the validity of a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement.”
– IPCC WGI;AR5