Why Would These Scientists Lie?

Published October 14, 2013

The Heartland Institute Replies to Trenberth and Oppenheimer

On September 18, two scientists sent emails to Media Matters for America denouncing a new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Why would two scientists publicly attack a team of nearly 50 of their peers for creating a peer-reviewed report more than 1,000 pages in length and citing nearly 4,000 peer-reviewed articles? Why would they choose to send their criticism to a Web site notorious for being the source of sound-bites for the Democratic Party and groups on the far left?

The two scientists, Kevin Trenberth with the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University, have long histories of being extremists in the debate over climate change. They speak as advocates for a cause and not as scientists. So we ask journalists and the interested public to weigh their intemperate opinions against the following endorsements of NIPCC from more credible climate scientists. Who is more likely to be right? We think the answer is obvious, but we would like to hear from you.

The NIPCC report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, can be downloaded for free here (PDF).) A free 20-page summary for policy makers (PDF) that is faithful to the full report is also available at this site.

Endorsements of NIPCC and
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

“I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.”

Kumar Raina
Former Deputy Director General
Geological Survey of India


Climate Change Reconsidered II fulfills an important role in countering the IPCC part by part, highlighting crucial things they ignore such as the Little Ice Age and the recovery (warming) which began in 1800-1850. Superimposed on that recovery, there is a prominent multi-decadal oscillation. These can explain much of climate change from 1800, including the fact that the warming has halted from 2000, phenomena the IPCC reports do not properly cover. In contrast to the IPCC, which often ignores evidence of past changes, the authors of the NIPCC report recognize that climatology requires studying past changes to infer future changes.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Founding Director & Professor of Physics Emeritus
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks


“I was glad to see that a new report was coming from the NIPCC. The work of this group of scientists to present the evidence for natural climate warming and climate change is an essential  counter-balance to the biased reporting of the IPCC. They have brought to focus a range of peer-reviewed publications showing that natural forces have in the past and continue today to dominate the climate signal. Considering the recent evidence that climate models have failed to predict the flattening of the global temperature curve, and that global warming seems to have ended some 15 years ago, the work of the NIPCC is particularly important.”

Ian Clark
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Ottawa, Canada


“The CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc.  There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies.” 

S. Jeevananda Reddy
Former Chief Technical Advisor
United Nations World Meteorological Organization


“NIPCC’s CCR-II report should open the eyes of world leaders who have fallen prey to the scandalous climate dictates  by the IPCC. People are already suffering the consequences of sub-prime financial instruments. Let them not suffer more from IPCC’s sub-prime climate science and models. That is the stark message of the NIPCC’s CCR-II report.”

M. I. Bhat
Formerly Professor and Head
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Kashmir


“The claim by the UN IPCC that ‘global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls’ does NOT agree with observational facts, and must hence be discarded as a serious disinformation. This is well taken in the CCR-II report.”

Nils-Axel Mörner
Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics
Stockholm University, Sweden


“Library shelves are cluttered with books on global warming. The problem is identifying which ones are worth reading. The NIPCC’s CCR-II report is one of these. Its coverage of the topic is comprehensive without being superficial. It sorts through conflicting claims made by scientists and highlights mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide increase is lower than climate models have until now assumed.”

Chris de Freitas
School of Environment
The University of Auckland, New Zealand


“CCR-II provides scientists, policy makers and other interested parties information related to the current state of knowledge in atmospheric studies.  Rather than coming from a pre-determined politicized position that is typical of the IPCC, the NIPCC constrains itself to the scientific process so as to provide objective information.  If we (scientists) are honest, we understand that the study of atmospheric processes/dynamics is in its infancy.  Consequently, the work of the NIPCC and its most recent report is very important.  It is time to move away from politicized science back to science – this is what NIPCC is demonstrating by example.”

Bruce Borders
Professor of Forest Biometrics
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources
University of Georgia


“The NIPCC’s new report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, fires a scientific cannon shot across the bow of the quasi-religious human-caused global warming movement by presenting data, facts, and scientific method constructs of climate change science. I only wish the IPCC would become as objective. A recent column by a nationally recognized writer recalled Syria outlawing yo-yos in 1933 because they thought that yo-yo motion caused drought. The NIPCC report documents that the AGW movement has created its own yo-yo rather than shedding light on how Earth dynamic systems change with time.  I applaud the NIPCC for bringing the scientific method back into what should always have been a scientific debate. 

Lee C. Gerhard
Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas
Past Director and State Geologist
Kansas Geological Survey


“I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several ‘schools of thought,’ in science and well as other disciplines , many of which  jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily. Climate, and even more so impacts and responses, are far too complex and important to be left to an official body like the IPCC.”

Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy & Environment

For more information or interviews, contact Jim Lakely at [email protected] or 312/377-4000.