IPPC lie in second paragraph

I didn’t get far before I found the first obvious lie in the International Panel of Climate Clowns latest report. In fact it was item 1.1. in their synthesised report where they say:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.

Using the period they give (because only a clown would say “it has warmed” without any time period) even using the IPCC’s own bogus upjusted figures, the warming from 1970 to 2000 is exactly the same scale and length as it was from 1910 to 1940. So, even within the same century their unequivocal warming since the 1950s is false.
To go over their other points – and it doesn’t need complex arguments because what they are saying is just utter nuts:

Human influence on the climate system is clear

No it’s not. I’ve seen nothing at all to suggest any human influence on the climate.

[Mann-made] greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid – 20th century.

As Salby convinced me, with >90% of emissions are from natural causes, there is no certain link between rising CO2 and human emissions. I’d go as far as to say if all other things were equal, I’d expect higher concentrations of CO2. But because we’ve seen natural warming in the 20th century, all other thing are not equal and CO2 must at least in part be rising DUE TO INCREASED TEMPERATURE of which a majority is likely natural.
As Salby convinced me, the proxies are not reliable, so as normal the IPCC are just clowning around saying they know the levels are “unprecedented” in 800,000 years.
But they really do take the biscuit when they lie and say that manmade drivers are “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid – 20th century. ” … that is  just delusional. The argument supporting this is very simple and only a clown would deny it. If their predicted mann-made warming did not happen, then natural variation is at least as large as the predicted warming, because the natural variation was more than big enough to stop the supposed man-made warming.
And if natural variation is this large, then it is extremely likely that natural variation rather than mann-made warming was responsible for at least part of the warming from which they derived their prediction. So however they estimate human causation, mann-made caused warming must be smaller than currently predicted and natural variation is as big as currently predicted. So, natural variation is more than likely larger than man-made warming.
And there’s plenty of evidence for this which is compelling (to anyone but those climate clowns). The 1910-1940 variation was largely natural and was the same size as the 1970-2000 which is assumed to be mainly human. So even within the 20th century we have strong evidence that natural variation is as large or larger than man-made change.
However when we look at the Central England Temperature record, we see that the 20th century is actually quite small. There are several episodes of temperature change recorded that are comparable but the warming from 1690s (the decade up to a quarter of Scotland died from cold induced famine) onwards is much larger. So, we’ve got clear proof of massive natural variation within the same century as they claim to be unprecedented as well as larger variation within the longest instrumentation record.

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans. Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its cause, indicating the sensitivity of natural and human systems to changing climate.

 I admit I once saw a study that showed that a small number of species of insects had increased their range northward in the UK. That trend was beneficial. I’ve seen increasing food yields, again showing that rising CO2 is beneficial. I’ve honestly never seen any data or any credible research that shows any adverse impacts. (There is plenty predicting doomsday, but nothing shows us heading toward doomsday)

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950. Some of these changes have been linked to human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.

More baloney. Yes it got warmer after the little ice-age. And guess what, when it gets warmer from natural causes, there tends to be less cold. And isn’t it great that when we get 37,000 extra winter deaths in the UK, that we aren’t in the little ice-age! Otherwise, I have looked and there is only two real changes (and statistically you’d expect some), and those are yes heavy precipitation events have increased – but I strongly suspect this is because modern instruments are better able to measure these rather than any underlying change – and the number of hurricanes have reduced.
And there I am bored. Unlike them I don’t get paid. Unlike them, I’ve got the climate on my side and Gaia is year by year showing them to be paid lackeys whose only reason to keep up this pretence of doomsday warming is for their own selfish benefits … to the detriment of everyone else whose fuel bills keep rising.

AND NOW TO EXPOSE THEIR FRAUD

(see: Only 0.6C warming – IPCC must now scale down warming prediction)
Since 2007 (or 2008) when the HITRAN database for estimating the effect of CO2 was updated. I’ve seen no mention at all from the Panel of Climate Clowns of the effect of this new IR data. And the reason is obvious and to my mind clearly amounts to fraud on their part: because if they started using the later version as used by Prof Hermann Harde, that they would immediately a hole in their non-science because the predicted rise in temperature immediately drops by some 30%
But … do Turkeys vote for Xmas? Do those living off this scare use data that shows there’s very little to be afraid of? Of course they don’t.
It’s simple. If they were honest, they would use the most up-to-date HITRAN data. And the fact they don’t (as far as I know) shows they are dishonest.