The Other Climate Report

On March 31, 2014 the fifth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, was released to the public. While little reported in the main stream media, this new publication represents an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is an answer to the propaganda put out by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its lackeys and a direct refutation that no real climate scientists dispute the conclusions of the climate change alarmists. For those who do not accept the claims of consensus science or the fatuous assurances that global warming is an imminent threat by vacuous politicians, this report sheds light on the real science behind global warming and its possible effects.

The news has been all over the airwaves, breathless news anchors and assorted other talking heads gravely delivering the news that our world is in peril. We are told we have to give up our profligate ways, stop using fossil fuels, slash our CO2 emissions or face nature's indignant wrath. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has gone so far as to attack fracking, which has lowered emissions by making natural gas more plentiful. No solutions are acceptable to the climate change cabal short of de-industrialization, it seems.

“We have five minutes before midnight,” warned Rajendra Pachauri. “We cannot isolate ourselves from anything that happens in any part of this planet. It will affect all of us in some way or the other.”

But the world's scientists have not all fallen into lockstep with the climate Nazis from the UN. There are those who have not only spoken out but provide a scholarly rebuttal to the IPCC propaganda machine. Who are these scientists willing to risk their reputations by opposing the group-think of the IPCC? They call themselves the NIPCC, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Here is a statement regarding the organization's genesis, taken from the report's forward:

NIPCC traces its beginnings to an informal meeting held in Milan, Italy in 2003 organized by Dr. S. Fred Singer and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The purpose was to produce an independent evaluation of the available scientific evidence on the subject of carbon dioxide-induced global warming in anticipation of the release of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). NIPCC scientists concluded IPCC was biased with respect to making future projections of climate change, discerning a significant human-induced influence on current and past climatic trends, and evaluating the impacts of potential carbon dioxide-induced environmental changes on Earth’s biosphere.

The report they produced is long, over 1,000 pages, and it is not the first produced by the scientists of NIPCC. In it they debunk the dire claims of the IPCC's latest report, in which the citizens of Earth are threatened with flood, famine, collapsing ecosystems, economic failure and death from extreme heat. There is not room in a single blog post to cover each in detail so I will recount the main points from the report's executive summary:

  • Global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation.

  • Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.

  • Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.

  • No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.

  • Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.

  • A phase of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild warming of the twentieth century. Similar periods of warming and cooling due to natural variability are certain to occur in the future irrespective of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

In short, there is nothing abnormal about the recent changes in climate—climate is always changing and those who would “stabilize” the climate are fools. They may as well try to stop the Sun from rising and setting. The warnings of imminent doom are all based on computer models that have proven to be totally unreliable, as shown below.

As can be seen from the figure, the vast majority of the IPCC's preferred climate model's predictions are way wide of the mark. The heavy dark line is the average while the circles and squares are actual measured data. Science is supposed to be the study of nature. Unfortunately, many climate scientists have more trust in their computer play toys than the physical world they are supposed to be studying.

But there are more points to be made. It isn't just the predicted results of anthropogenic global warming that are in doubt, many of the fundamental scientific assumptions the underlie the false claims and scaremongering of the IPCC reports deserve a bit of debunking as well. If you look to the executive summary of the previous report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, published in 2013, there are even more details:

  • Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.

  • Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred.

  • A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis.

  • Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.

  • Over recent geological time, Earth’s temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature. A warming of 2°C above today, should it occur, falls within the bounds of natural variability.

  • Though a future warming of 2°C would cause geographically varied ecological responses, no evidence exists that those changes would be net harmful to the global environment or to human well-being.

  • At the current level of ~400 ppm we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels 15 times greater existed during the Cambrian Period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects.

  • The overall warming since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age modulated by natural multidecadal cycles driven by ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar variations at the de Vries (~208 year) and Gleissberg (~80 year) and shorter periodicities.

  • Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, which represents 34% of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

  • CO2 is a vital nutrient used by plants in photosynthesis. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere “greens” the planet and helps feed the growing human population.

  • No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related CO2 emissions. The parallelism of temperature and CO2 increase between about 1980 and 2000 AD could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate causation.

  • The causes of historic global warming remain uncertain, but significant correlations exist between climate patterning and multidecadal variation and solar activity over the past few hundred years.

  • Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions.

Perhaps the single best indicator that the climate scientists' computer models are wrong, and by implication the assumption that CO2 acts as a control knob for Earth's temperature is also erroneous, is what has not been happening recently. Even the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri admit that there has been no global warming for a decade and a half. During this time, atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to rise which, according to the IPCC's claims, should have made temperatures rise in lock step.

So here is a voluminous report, prepared by credentialed scientists, that refutes the claims of the IPCC and other warmists. A list of the priniciple contributors can be found here, proving the the consensus the alarmists talk about is far from unanimous. Yet America's blatherskite president, Barack Obama, repeats the lie: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” This is willful disregard for the truth based on a false claim by duplicitous “researchers.”

As reported in the Canadian newspaper, The National Post, “The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 Earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of who thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97 percent figure that pundits now tout.”

This blatantly false “fact” has been repeated time and again by the media, who should check their facts, and by activists, who have no interest in the truth. Why? A recent peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, openly encourages global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause. The paper's authors, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, appear to openly advocate “information manipulation” to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.” Here is part of the abstract:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

In other words, their lying serves a greater good; the end justifies the means. This attitude is antithetical to science and everything it teaches. The 97% lie goes hand in hand with the claim that there are no peer reviewed papers refuting the global warming scam. A collection of 1350+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm can be found here. Do not be deceived by deluded scientists who exaggerate and lie for purposes other than science. Scientists should never lie, that is what we have UN bureaucrats and politicians for.

Still, not every paper cited in the NIPPC report is by scientists who question global warming dogma. In many cases, results reported with a pro-global warming slant can be interpreted in different ways. The NIPCC authors freely admit this in the reports preface:

We acknowledge, as we did in the prefaces to previous volumes in this series, that not every scientist whose work we cite disagrees with IPCC positions even though their research points in different directions. We recognize there may be some among the thousands of scientists we quote who are dismayed to see their work cited in a book written by “skeptics.” We ask them to read this book with an open mind and ask themselves how much of what they think they know to be true is based on trust, perhaps misplaced, in claims propagated by IPCC. Even scientists need to be reminded sometimes that skepticism, not conformity, is the higher value in the pursuit of knowledge.

That is the single most important message being presented here—good scientists are all skeptics. At its core, science is based on observation, experimentation and repeatably. Nothing should be taken at face value or solely on the word of others. Today, climate modelers spend more time changing historical data to fit their models than in fixing the wonky things themselves. But take heart, things will eventually sort themselves out, because even the most self deluded scientist can not deny nature itself. To quote an old TV show, the truth is out there.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.


Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

As reported in this post, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), has issued its own report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, to counter the half truths and outright lies in the IPCC propaganda piece, but it seems that information about their report has been suppressed. As a public service we proudly present an op-ed by Dr. Craig Idso, lead editor and scientist for the NIPCC.

not very objective

Here is the problem I have when reading skeptical reports on climate change. I want to be objective, and I genuinely want to listen to both sides, but when our president is referred to as 'blatherskite' in an article that is supposed to be a scientific rebuttal, it just comes across as, I don't know, your opinion. So, whenever I hear a subjective comment when reading or listening to anything that is intended to be portrayed as an objective perspective, I kind of stop taking it seriously. Like when I watch Jon Stewart, or listen to Alex Jones (yes I just compared them), I presume what they are saying is biased. That's what I take from this article, that it's biased. If, while reading this article, I had not encountered subjective comments like stated above, or others, like Lackey, Vacuous, Climate Nazis, Scaremongering, and Wonky (wonky? really?), then your thesis would have resonated with me more. A proof read wouldn't hurt either.

The science is objective

The politics are not. A blatherskite is a person who talks at great length and says nothing, which fits Obama and most other politicians to a tee. There are days when I feel totally analytical and others when I feel a bit snarky. Judging by the reader response, snarky tends to win out over hard science, so I offer a mix. I found the same sort of thing when I used to teach, gotta bring some attitude and a few laughs to get that science stuff past the youngsters.

Science debate shouldn't include name calling

I appreciated the first post (not to mention the article which was very good!). I'm always amazed when I offer some skepticism about climate change and am told "oh, you're a denier". Despite the fitness of labels, it never helps an argument when labels for people are used derogatorily. Many of your readers totally agree on your political views, and decrying actions of our leaders is important because they can cause so much harm. But throwing labels just enables them to throw labels back and mire the whole discussion.

It's not name calling, it's an accurate discription

It's not name calling, it's an accurate description. Obama, Kerry, Boxer, and all the rest are blatherskites. Besides, the IPCC report is a political document, not a scientific one, and if there is one area of human endeavor that demands name calling it is politics.

Thanks for posting this

Thank you for posting the link to the NIPCC report. I saw nothing in the news about this, only more hyped up climate doom stuff on the major networks and NPR (National Progressive Radio). They have all drunk the Kool-aid.