The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released a major new report on climate change science produced by an international team of 40 scientists at a press conference on Sept. 17, 2013, at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.
UN Report Challenged
The new report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, challenges what its authors say are the overly alarmist reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which released its most recent report on September 30, 2013.
The series is published by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and education organization that publishes Environment & Climate News. Economist magazine in 2012 called The Heartland Institute “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism on man-caused climate change.” The New York Times calls Heartland “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.”
Thousands of Peer-Reviewed Citations
Like the earlier volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series, this new report cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles to determine the current state-of-the-art of climate science. NIPCC authors paid special attention to contributions overlooked by the IPCC or that present data, discussion, or implications arguing against the IPCC’s claim that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.
The authors conclude the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double. The NIPCC authors found that whatever warming may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.
Copies of a Summary for Policymakers, an executive summary, and a digital version of the entire book can be downloaded for free at the NIPCC website, http://www.nipccreport.org/.
In addition to an Executive Summary, the new edition of Climate Change Reconsidered has chapters on Global Climate Models and Their Limitations, Forcings and Feedbacks, Solar Forcing of Climate, Observations: Temperature Records, Observations: The Crysophere, Observations: The Hydrosphere and Oceans, and Observations: Extreme Weather.
NIPCC is a project of three nonprofit organizations: the Science and Environmental Policy Project, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. The lead authors of the new report are climate scientists Craig Idso, Ph.D., S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Robert Carter, Ph.D. Scientists from around the world participated as lead authors, section authors, contributors, and reviewers.
The first two volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series, published in 2009 and 2011, are widely recognized as the most comprehensive and authoritative critiques of the reports of the United Nations’ IPCC. In June, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the two volumes.
Praise for New Report
Analysts praised the new edition of Climate Change Reconsidered.
“The updated edition of Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)—Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science—makes a compelling case that the computer models, hypotheses, and policy prescriptions of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are at odds with reality,” wrote environmental science author Paul Driessen on the Master Resource website.
“The NIPCC report will reveal a scientific community deeply uncertain about the reliability of the computer models used by the IPCC to predict climate problems. Climate Change Reconsidered II will also demonstrate that many of the world’s leading climate experts now question, or entirely refute, the IPCC’s basic postulates and its interpretations of the observational evidence,” wrote International Climate Science Coalition executive director Tom Harris in the Calgary Herald.
“The NIPCC criticism doesn’t come from a ‘fringe’ group of scientists: it is repeated in thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature, many of which are listed and interpreted by the scientist authors of the NIPCC report,” Harris explained.
“The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error,” reported science writer Steve Goreham in the Washington Times.
Jim Lakely ([email protected]) is communications director for The Heartland Institute.