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.