Conspiracy theorists have long held that global warming (aka climate change) is a hoax perpetrated on us by far-left scientists. They cite as proof every time there is an extreme winter storm like the one just experienced by the Midwest and Northeast.
On Friday NASA released a report on Global Warming and Climate Change. The report was based on the findings of top scientists from 13 institutions. It says, “Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities.”
The gloom-and-doom report predicts dire consequences to the health and well-being of the American people. The scientists warn that we will experience increasing extreme weather, poorer air quality, the spread of new diseases by insects and pests and shortages of food and water. If carbon emissions continue unabated, dangerously high temperatures, rising seas, deadly wildfires, torrential rainfalls and devastating hurricanes will get worse than they are already.
Environmentalists quickly shouted ‘we told you so’ while the all-knowing conspiracy theorist Donald Trump pooh-poohed the report. He now admits there is warming but insists it will cool down.
I’ve always maintained that global warming and global cooling are cyclical, and that man plays a minor role in producing climate change. But in the clash between some of our top scientists and Trump, I’m no longer going to doubt the scientists. I just don’t see them being part of a vast left-wing conspiracy out to destroy our economy. They are not Obama scientists, nor are they Hillary Clinton or Al Gore scientists. I believe they have provided us with credible evidence to prove that Global Warming is for real and to expect dire consequences if Greenhouse Gases are not drastically reduced.
Let’s face it, we and the rest of the civilized world have become dependent on fossil fuels … petroleum, natural gas and coal. When we’re talking about carbon emissions we’re talking largely about cars. We’ve done a lot to reduce air pollution.
I remember a time when coming down from the high desert on I10 near Indio you could see off in the far distance a menacing rust-colored cloudy sky. That was the smog engulfing Los Angeles and other nearby cities. With pollution controls you don’t see that cloud anymore. But let’s not kid ourselves, cars continue to be major contributors to carbon emissions.
The problem is even worse in China, India and the developing counties in Asia. The coal burning factories and smoke belching motor vehicles make high noon look like dusk at sunset time. I’ve been to Beijing and Shanghai when the air pollution was so thick, I thought it was a heavy fog. It was the same in Katmandu, Nepal where you would think the rarified air would be pollution-free. But Katmandu’s motor vehicles go about belching out thick smoke.
When I was in Mexico City, the pollution was so bad you could hardly see the nose on your face. However, my sister just spent several days in Mexico City and says the air there was no longer polluted.
China and India are probably the worst of all polluters. Although China has made some strides in reducing carbon emissions, the smoke stacks of their coal-fueled factories continue to belch out tons of thick smoke. I do not believe India has done much to reduce carbon emissions. Adding to greenhouse gasses is the fact that many of the 2-3/4 billion Chinese and Indians, especially those in rural areas, cook their meals on small charcoal burning grills.
While the United States and Europe have done much to reduce carbon emissions, much more needs to be done, and done sooner than later. Rolling back Obama’s coal controls may appeal to coal miners but it won’t do anything to reduce greenhouse gases.
What are we going to do about the thousands of aircraft, both civilian and military that are up in the air every day in the U.S. alone? And what about our military forces? Those tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces and rocket launchers belch out gobs of diesel burning smoke. It’s not just our tanks, but it’s also the tanks of NATO, Russia, Israel, Egypt, China, North and South Korea, etc.
Environmentalist say we should depend on our electricity needs solely on solar and wind power. I have some serious doubts about that.
Are people willing to pay the price for the changes the new NASA report calls for? I don’t think so. Just look at what happened in France Saturday. When French President Emmanuel Macron raised fuel taxes as a means of getting people to drive their cars less, there was rioting in the streets of Paris.
The problem is that people want to believe the climate change deniers like Trump and the conspiracy theorists who insist global warming is a hoax.
DanMan says
I read the article in the Comical and it never included a single name or specific agency did it? I recall it said 13 agencies so that would have at least 13 Chairzhers that would have to accept responsibility for their contributions wouldn’t it? Who are they? They said it was a WHITE HOUSE REPORT.
It’s an all out push to save the Paris treaty and its the same BS. Even the article linked here reads more like a climatic horoscope where anything could happen but nothing is certain. Except the solutions. Which also happen to dovetail nicely with every other dem/lib initiative that are so awesome they are mandatory.
Higher taxes. Lower standard of living. More government control of your options. More isolation for the rulemakers. Less freedom for the plebes. Gotta save the climate!
But just for fun I went into the link Howie gave us to try to find who the 13 agencies are. In reading the Comical article over the weekend (not linked today on the free side like it had been) the agencies were presented as being in the US government, so the claim it was a White House report seem dubious but no matter. I found the 10 referenced agencies in the link under the ‘Chapters’ tab. The Southwest Chapter shows its boundary to the west is New mexico but the research is exclusive to Southwest California. The Southeastern Chapter has it’s western boundary as Louisiana. So yay! Texas is exempt from this garbage so far.
Some of the reference links in the chapter resources are dead end 404s and several are the same ‘cross reference’. You see a lot of foreign research from before 2010 so at least they do contribute to the effort by recycling! But I’ll take all that European research showing the US needs to pay billions to rectify our dominant status as producers with the same grain of salt I’ll adorn the rim of my next margarita glass with.
Yeah, about this gorebull worming…nah brah
Howie Katz says
NASA lists the following groups whose scientists contributed to its report:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Societ
American Physical Society
The Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Global Change Research Program
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Plus resources from worldwide scientific organizations
These don’t look like the kind of agencies that would put out a bunch of BS. Dan Man, you’ve just proven yourself to be a climate change denier. I wish you were right, but I believe you are dead wrong with your comment this time. I’m sorry to say this, but that makes you part of the problem.
Congress mandated periodic NASA reports on global warming and ordered them to be released by the White House. That makes it a White House report.
DanMan says
I have no problem being part of the problem. Choose your words carefully to answer if these august agencies offer solutions other than raising taxes to limit the use of carbon based energy. And then when you find they don’t notice that their solution to limit the use of carbon based energy is also favored by our geopolitical rivals who not only won’t go along with that mess, they promote it in our country while laughing at those like you who do believe it.
The IPCC is a joke Howie. We are the only country reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a significant level and we aren’t even a part of their scheme that is the Paris Accord. None of the signers are meeting their goals you know.
How much carbon gets spewed into the atmosphere when California fires burn? How much you reckon gets burned when 400 Lear and Gulf Stream jets collect at the next gorebull worming summit to bring their wealthy liberal ownerss to denounce the US over using fossil fuels?
Now look at your listed sources. Would an agency named the US Global Change Research Program come up with anything that wouldn’t bolster their claims for more research money? c’mon! And why is the American Geophysical Union listed twice? Do we need a union of geophysicist? And what is the difference in them and the American Physical Society? I know of the US Geological Society but I have never heard of the Geological Society of America. Sounds like a group made up to sound like the USGS but counter everything they don’t agree with.
Howie Katz says
My bad, Dan Man. That second American Geophysical Union should have been American Medical Association. I have corrected it on my original comment.
Steve Sherman says
Here’s input from a friend whose opinions I respect.
I downloaded and read carefully the summary report from the government website. Here is one of the opening paragraphs of therefor
This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities,
especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming
since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative
explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.
In the next 25 pages it goes through exhaustive demonstrations that there has been warming the last 115 years, with a somewhat higher proportion of it in the last 30 years or so. It refers repeatedly the rise of CO2 by human activities as the obvious connection to rising temperatures. This of course is the common argument of correlation demonstrates causality, which is a false premise. Note the “extremely likely” phrase, why is that used? Because there is no scientifically compelling data to prove the hypothesis. No one, I say again NO ONE has or can show a mechanism by which CO2 at 400 ppm can trap enough energy to make any difference in the amount of energy that the planet absorbs from the sun by all the other means.
The report never touches on any mechanism by which the process can be tied directly to CO2 levels. All the models that people have been using for 18+ years now postulate an increase in planetary humidity through an interaction between CO2 level and water vapor levels in the atmosphere, with the polar H2O molecule being the actual energy trap. However, there is zero data to support this, and the all the numerous models have failed very badly in predicting temperature rise over the years. So the report doesn’t mention any proposed mechanism, because there isn’t any that is supportable for them to use.
Note the “there is no convincing alternative explanation” statement. The absence of some provable alternate explanation is not proof of the hypothesis, and in fact the simple fact that planetary temperature is a very complex phenomenon that has risen and fallen many times in history long before the internal combustion engine was invented demonstrates that we do not have anything like comprehensive understanding of how climate varies over long periods of time.
Yes, the planet is warming slowly, and in truth there’s not a damn thing we can do about it other than prepare and adapt. Yes, we should generate and use energy more efficiently, but nothing we in America or Europe can make any difference in CO2 production compared to India and China and some developing countries. Probably the next smartest thing anyone could do if they were really concerned about this would be to get serious about generation four nuclear power plants that use Thorium, get a standardized design, and after trials and optimization, build a network of them to produce most of the power needed for industry, heating, cooling, etc. Drop the use of fossil fuels down to mostly for planes, ships, and other uses where simple portable power source is necessary.
This kind of near panic reporting that blames everything on human use of fuels is terrible psuedoscience. It shows an awful lot of smart people have decided that the AGW hypothesis MUST be real, and they will just go along assuming it is. Rather than rattle on about the need to decrease CO2 generation (which is not going to happen), it would be of much greater use to urge a lot of careful planning and commitment to doing the things that will lessen the effects of warming.
Royko says
I have no confidence in any organization or agency infested with activists bent upon fostering an agenda intended to both diminish the strength of the USA and to redistribute the wealth of our nation.
Fat Albert says
1. Science isn’t a “consensus” kind of thing. You collect your data, write up your conclusions and publish it. Either your data gets verified by other researchers or it doesn’t. The validity of your conclusions are only as solid as the data they are based on. The scientific community was once united about the Earth being the center of the universe.
2. If man is responsible for the current warming trend, (assuming that there is in fact a current warming trend) then it is necessary to explain why and how this trend is different from other warming trends that have happened in the past.
3. Computer models are not data. They are extrapolations based on data. And as any good computer scientist will tell you GIGO (garbage in = garbage out) Unless the researchers are willing to publish the raw, un-modeled, un-corrected, temperature data (along with the collection methodology) that their models are based on – then at a minimum their models are suspect. More likely their models are so much bovine offal. Really. It’s so much easier to start with the conclusion you want to reach and then extract the data you need to produce that result.
Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that there really is global warming, and modern man really is the cause, now what? Most of the solutions I’ve heard call for massive economic changes, nationalizing (or internationalizing) a variety of industries and dialing back energy production significantly. Since the US used more energy per capita than any other country (by far) the US will get hit the hardest (by far). One prediction I saw had the US standard of living drop by 20% – 30%. Granted that would reduce the pressure on the southern border, but I suspect that our current residents would not be happy about the change. So, what solutions are there?
By the way, every time I read some article about how electric cars and trucks will save the environment I get the giggles. Our electric grid operates at 90% or better capacity now. What do these so called “experts” think is gonna happen with millions of people get home at night and plug in their cars to charge? Not to mention all of the heavy trucks that transport all of our food and goods. Insanity.
Finally Howie, you’ve managed to convince me. Be honest now and admit it. You’re really a liberal right? I mean, a nice guy and all that, but . . . . a liberal. Be honest – did you vote for Hillary?
Howie Katz says
Fat, up to now I thought I could count you as a friend. A liberal? How insulting! Voted for Hillary? Not in your lifetime! That was the insult of insults. Just the thought of the Hildebeast wants to make me puke.
Fat Albert says
Well crap Howie, if you’re gonna start spouting liberal BS like “manmade global warming” then what do you expect? I know that you despise Donald Trump, but you’re letting your dislike for the man pull you into some liberal positions. This is a case in point. Just because Trump dismisses climate change as a made up problem doesn’t mean that you need to go the other way.
Sometimes Trump is right!
Kimmon Johnson says
Here is a link to 120 years of climate fear-mongering from 1895 to 2014. It was compiled by Anthony Watts, the scientist who founded the most widely read site on the net about climate, WattsUpWithThat.com.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/a-brief-history-of-climate-panic-and-crisis-both-warming-and-cooling/
I distrust most anything issued by this government or any others regarding climate. The vast political power, money and rent-seeking opportunities at stake for these governments and regulators has already proven too much of a temptation for them to avoid rampant corruption and fraud. They already have long, ugly rap sheets.
Jim in Conroe says
So because you don’t like Trump you are going to deny your previous skepticism about climate change and believe the scientists, who you didn’t believe before.
My understanding of this report is that it involved no original research, but was merely an agglomeration of previous reports, studies, and papers prepared in or for the 13 government agencies by a multitude of scientists. None of this previous work was able to conclusively tie climate change to human causes, nor do the myriad of models – which are the only source of such a link – accurately hind cast historical climate change events or accurately describe and explain what is going on today. Yet they can predict to a few hundredths of a degree the impact that certain changes in behavior will have.
I don’t buy it. Google “In search of the next ice age” and enjoy a video from the 1970’s that predicted an entirely different climate change scenario.
Joseph A Olson says
There is NO greenhouse gas. NO gas molecule can capture, store, redirect or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light. It takes more training in Thermodynamics to get an undergraduate degree in Engineering than a PhD in meteorology or climaclowonology.
“Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami” > FauxScienceSlayer
Erich says
A couple of years ago I read an article about a glacier in Peru whose retreat was being blamed on man-made global warming; the “proof” was that more and more ancient plant beds were being newly uncovered each year as the ice retreated (this started in 2002). Carbon dating indicated that most of these plant beds have been buried for at least 5,000 years.
Think about that for a minute. What that really says is, the earth today is *still* not as warm as it was 5,000 or more years ago (i.e. the ancient plant beds are only just being uncovered, the plants themselves were still alive long before that). Was mankind also responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago? I highly doubt it; mankind was no more responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago than for the subsequent cooler temperatures.
Also, anyone who visited Antarctica 50 million years ago could have lounged beneath swaying palm trees and enjoyed balmy 68-degree weather — this according to http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/03/from-leafy-to-lifeless-tropical-rainforest-once-covered-antarctica/. I don’t think mankind had anything to do with the two-mile-thick layer of ice now covering the eastern half of that continent, either 🙂
Joseph A Olson says
There is NO greenhouse gas. NO gas molecule can capture, store, redirect or amplify radiant energy photons moving at the speed of light. It takes more training in Thermodynamics to get an undergraduate degree in Engineering than a PhD in meteorology or climaclowonology.
“Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami” > FauxScienceSlayer
Kimmon Johnson says
Here is a quote from the response by Dr. Patrick Michaels, Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, to the Fourth National Climate Assessment.
” The draft fourth “National Assessment” (“NA4”) of climate change impacts is systematically flawed and requires a complete revision.
NA4 uses a flawed ensemble of models that dramatically overforecast warming of the lower
troposphere, with even larger errors in the upper tropical troposphere. The model ensemble also could not accommodate the “pause” or “slowdown” in warming between the two large El Niños of 1997-8 and 2015-6. The distribution of warming rates within the CMIP5 ensemble is not a true indication of a statistical range of prospective warming, as it is a collection of systematic errors. Despite a glib statement about this Assessment fulfilling the terms of the federal Data Quality Act, that is fatuous. The use of systematically failing models does not fulfill the “maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” provision of the Act.
Institutional memory relating to the production of previous assessments is strong, and the process itself is long, as the first drafts of this version were written in the middle of the second Obama Administration. They were written largely by the same team that wrote the 2014 Assessment, which NOAA advertised, at its release, was “a key deliverable of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.” The first (2000) Assessment used the two most extreme models of the 14 considered for temperature and precipitation. In my review I applied them to 10-year running means of lower-48 temperatures and the residual error was larger than the error of the raw data itself! The historical lineage of the fourth Assessment has all but guaranteed an alarming report, regardless of reality. USGCRP should produce a reset Assessment, relying on a model or models that work in four dimensions for future guidance and ignoring the ones that don’t.
USGCRP should produce a reset Assessment, relying on a model or models that work in four dimensions for future guidance and ignoring the ones that don’t. Why wasn’t this done to begin with? The model INM-CM4 is spot on, both at the surface and in the vertical, but using it would have largely meant the end of warming as a significant issue. Under a realistic emission scenario (which USGCRP also did not use), INM-CM4 strongly supports the “lukewarm”1 synthesis of global warming. Given the culture of alarmism that has infected the global change community since before the first (2000) Assessment, using this model would have been a complete turnaround with serious implications. ”
This report was a bad cut and paste job from earlier flawed data generated primarily under the extremely politicized scientific agencies of the Obama administration. It’s just a continuation of the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the human race.
Kimmon Johnson says
One question for Mr. Katz:
Why is this report attributed to NASA in your sub-head when it is issued by the Global Change Research Program, a multi-agency effort overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which falls under the auspices of the Department of Commerce, the administrative lead agency of the effort ? Other than having a couple of people serving on various committees NASA is not involved in this report.
I wish to remain anonymous says
Howie,
How did you get pulled in to this garbage? The ice age came and went without man and his machines, weather changes. I have found sea shells in the limestone in my yard here in West Austin, how that get there? The climate is ever changing with or without us.
Kimmon Johnson says
Here is the link for the entire document released by Michaels at Cato in my earlier comment.
http://1ggye33lc4653z56mp34pl6t.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Assessment-Comment-PJMJan31FINAL.pdf
lorensmith says
H G Wells wrote War of the Worlds in 1898. Maybe the debate over global warming will unite us against a common enemy in a way; similar to the martian invasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAle6wZVMWQ
wiki
The plot has been related to invasion literature of the time. The novel has been variously interpreted as a commentary on evolutionary theory, British imperialism, and generally Victorian superstitions, fears and prejudices. At the time of publication, it was classified as a scientific romance, like Wells’ earlier novel The Time Machine. The War of the Worlds has been both popular (having never been out of print) and influential, spawning half a dozen feature films, radio dramas, a record album, various comic book adaptations, a television series, and sequels or parallel stories by other authors. It was most memorably dramatized in a 1938 radio program that allegedly caused public panic among listeners who did not know the Martian invasion was fictional.
DanMan says
0-17. Thanks guys. Other than peeking at Howie’s link and seeing where that led I did no research. Cool to see my take reinforced by such a knowledgeable horde.
Isn’t it amazing that It has become quite easy to form a credible opinion on just about any subject by looking at the source of the information being presented. That’s not our fault. Media has crapped on their own dinner plate.
Kimmon Johnson says
RE: Politicization of Scientific Organizations
The 22 year veteran and public face of the American Physical Society (listed in Katz’s #2 comment), Michael Lubell, was fired by the APS shortly after Donald Trump was elected in November 2016 because he issued a pro forma congratulations to the new president. His frequent criticisms of Trump during the campaign drew no objections, but sending a commonly acceptable peace offering to the White House was deemed a capital offense by the bien pensant Leftists in the hierarchy of APS.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/us-physics-society-removes-chief-lobbyist-after-controversial-press-release-trump-s
DanMan says
also note the first sentence in the Geological Society of America’s mission statement
“As an international scientific society, GSA serves members in academia, government, and industry around the world.”
How in heck does the White House own any of this mess again? My hunch is its a bunch of leftover hooey from the previous administration being paraded by the usual megaphones on the left.
Howie Katz says
I sincerely hope all you guys are right in pointing out that the NASA report is a lot of hogwash, thereby making me wrong!
DaMan says
well that was easy, per my comment above
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/andrew-light-obama-official-helped-prepare-dire-na/
Kimmon Johnson says
Mr. Katz,
The Fourth National Climate Assessment report you have cited and written about here is not a NASA document.
It is not a White House document.
This report was compiled by different people from a number of government agencies and universities. It was overseen and issued under the authority of the Department of Commerce via the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
If you want to be truthful and correct, you’ll stop calling it a NASA document.
Howie Katz says
Johnson, I do not mind being called wrong because, of course, I’ve been wrong before and will most likely be wrong again. But I sure as hell resent being called a liar!
Get this through your thick skull. Congress mandated periodic NASA reports on global warming and ordered them to be released by the White House. That makes it a White House report.
While President Trump does not agree with this report and while it was not written by anyone on the White House staff, when it’s released by the White House, which it was, it’s still a White House report.
fat albert says
Howie,
With all due respect, your posting referred to the report as a NASA report both in the tagline and in the body of your posting. But the report itself says “The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) deliver a report to Congress and the President no less than every four years.” The lead agency compiling the report is NOAA and NASA is only listed as being a source for some of the data. So, there’s that. . . . Please note however that the language of the bill does NOT require that the White House release the report.
As for it being a “White House” report. I suppose that since it it issued by a department of the administration branch of our government, and since the President is the Chief Executive of the Administrative branch, it could be said to be a White House report. But by that same logic, if you are at odds with the IRS you could tell people that the White House is auditing you. The report wasn’t prepared by the White House, the White House didn’t ask for it, the White House didn’t endorse it, and it’s obvious from his remarks that the “White House” thinks it’s a piece of crap.
What the White House DID do, however was to steal a march on those pesky liberal congress critters by releasing it on the Friday after Thanksgiving while everybody else in Washington was back home. Now they’ll find it a bit more difficult to wave it in the air while proclaiming doom and gloom.
Finally, I might note that Mr. Johnson addressed you respectfully, NEVER called you a liar, and simply ask that you not call it a NASA report, which it certainly is not.
Don’t get your panties so twisted!
Kimmon Johnson says
Mr. Katz,
I would suggest you actually read the documents you choose to write about. I really was trying to help you not embarrass yourself, but to no avail. Try clicking on the “About” tab of the report at your original link. Then click on the sub-tabs there such as “Federal Steering Committee” and “Administrative Lead Agency”. They are very informative and provide you with all the information you need to determine who was involved in this report.
The following is the three paragraph introductory description at the beginning of the report you write about and link to in your column:
” The Global Change Research Act of 1990 mandates that the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) deliver a report to Congress and the President no less than every four years that “1) integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program…; 2) analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems, and biological diversity; and 3) analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, and projects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years.”1
The Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) fulfills that mandate in two volumes. This report, Volume II, draws on the foundational science described in Volume I, the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR).2 Volume II focuses on the human welfare, societal, and environmental elements of climate change and variability for 10 regions and 18 national topics, with particular attention paid to observed and projected risks, impacts, consideration of risk reduction, and implications under different mitigation pathways. Where possible, NCA4 Volume II provides examples of actions underway in communities across the United States to reduce the risks associated with climate change, increase resilience, and improve livelihoods.
This assessment was written to help inform decision-makers, utility and natural resource managers, public health officials, emergency planners, and other stakeholders by providing a thorough examination of the effects of climate change on the United States. ”
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is not mentioned above. The White House is not mentioned. These are very important distinctions. If you can cite the legislation Congress passed requiring NASA to deliver “periodic reports on global warming” to the White House to then be issued to the American people, I will be glad to admit you are correct and I am mistaken. I’ve never heard of it.
Here is another source from the U.S, government to help you understand the statutory requirements passed by Congress regarding Quadrennial Global Climate Change Research Program you yourself cited.
https://www.globalchange.gov/content/whats-new-nca4
Royko says
I couldn’t say it any better:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/27/nolte-only-anti-science-suckers-believe-climate-change-hysteria/
Kimmon Johnson says
This is an excellent contrarian climate research project sponsored by the Heartland Institute. If you want facts and analysis unburdened by political pressure and groupthink, this is a reliable resource.
” The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, as its name suggests, is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.
NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.
NIPCC traces its beginnings to an informal meeting held in Milan, Italy in 2003 organized by Dr. S. Fred Singer and the Science & 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 the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). NIPCC scientists concluded the 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.
To highlight such deficiencies in the IPCC’s AR4, in 2008 SEPP partnered with The Heartland Institute to produce Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate, a summary of research for policymakers that has been widely distributed and translated into six languages. In 2009, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change joined the original two sponsors to help produce Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), the first comprehensive alternative to the alarmist reports of the IPCC. ”
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/