A common argument in warmist circles goes like this missive from Prince Charles:
“If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous that we can’t wait until we are absolutely sure the planet is dying.”
But, if the treatment prescribed means your child will face significant personal restrictions in the future due to the treatment, and the doctor refuses to discuss alternatives, wouldn’t you as a parent want to get a second opinion? Of course you would, and that is what the NIPCC report is all about. As I noted in Excerpts from the leaked AR5 Summary for Policy Makers there doesn’t appear to be a single climate skeptic involved, so getting a second opinion is the role this NIPCC reports fills. Note – I had no role nor input to this report, but I think it is important to consider if for no other reason than to get a second opinion. – Anthony
Major New Report on Tuesday: Climate Science Says Global Warming Is Not a Crisis
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) on Tuesday, Sept. 17 will release a major new report on climate change science produced by an international team of 40 scientists at a press conference at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. Conference call available to those who cannot attend.
CHICAGO, IL (PRWEB) September 16, 2013
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) on Tuesday, Sept. 17 will release a major new report on climate change science produced by an international team of 40 scientists at a press conference at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.
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), whose next report is due out later this month.
(NOTE: If you cannot attend the Chicago press conference in person, a conference call with the NIPCC scientists will take place the same day, Tuesday, Sept. 17 at Noon Central Time. Register here to participate in the conference call.)
What: Press conference announcing release of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science
When: 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 17.
Where: James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street
Press Room (15th Floor)
Chicago, Illinois USA
Who:
Lead author S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, director of the Science and Environmental Policy Project
Lead author Craig Idso, Ph.D., chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Co-author Willie Soon, Ph.D., chief science advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute
Media: Open to all credentialed press, register here for the Noon Central Time conference call after the live Chicago event
Copies of a Summary for Policymakers, an executive summary, and the entire book (unbound) will be available to reporters at the news conference. All three documents will be available for free online following the news conference.
Quotes for pre-release attribution:
Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute:
“This is probably the most important report on climate change ever produced. Its breadth and depth rival that of the IPCC’s reports. Its authors have no agenda except to find the truth. It anticipates and soundly refutes the IPCC’s hypothesis that global warming is man-made and will be harmful. And it comes at a time when global warming alarmism is retreating among academics, the general public, and the political class.”
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., atmospheric and space physicist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP):
“Scientists have not been able to devise an empirically validated theory proving that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to higher global average surface temperatures (GAST).
“Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating each of the EPA’s three lines of evidence, then the EPA’s assertions that increasing CO2 concentrations also cause sea-level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods, and droughts are also disproved.
“Such causality assertions require a validated theory that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, the EPA’s conclusions cannot stand. In science, credible empirical data always trump theory.”
Dr. Craig Idso, Ph.D., founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
“Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II) provides the scientific balance that is missing from the work of the IPCC. Although the IPCC claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, this report demonstrates that such is certainly not the case.
“In many instances the IPCC has seriously exaggerated its conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and ignored the findings of key scientific studies that run counter to its viewpoint. CCR-II examines literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles whose findings do not support, and indeed often contradict, the IPCC’s perspective on climate change.”
Dr. Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., paleontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist, and environmental scientist; former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University (Townsville, Australia):
“NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered II report is full of factual evidence that today’s climate continues to jog along well within the bounds of previous natural variation. The empirical pigeons have therefore finally come home to roost on the IPCC’s speculative computer models — and they carry the message that ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the intensity and magnitude of extreme events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring.”
The series is published by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit research and education organization. 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.”
Like 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 that were overlooked by the IPCC or presented 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.
Most notably, the authors say the IPCC has exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double and whatever warming may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.
NIPCC is a project of three nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. The lead authors of the new report are Craig Idso, Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., identified above, and Robert Carter, Ph.D., former head of the School of Earth Sciences, James Cook University (Australia). 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. The complete texts and reviews of both volumes are available here and here. In June, a division of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a Chinese translation and condensed edition of the two volumes.
The Heartland Institute is a 29-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely(at)heartland(dot)org and 312/377-4000, or visit our Web site.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A second opinion always helps find the truth in most matters. Having a consolidated report that provides little publicized information in aggregate is rare and refreshing.
A well deserved thanks to all those involved for you efforts!
Absolutely. Of course if the child has had thousands of fevers before in the past, many of them worse than the current one and never died there is no reason to panic and subject the child to a harmful drug regime.
It’s a classic false analogy, a muddled way of thinking. I often wonder whether the Monarchy can survive once the people of the UK realize how much wool has been pulled over their eyes and how many elderly people have died of hypothermia in the dark as a result of pseudoscience, “royal” societies, NGOs, and fradulent “investigations.”
A more correct comparison is if your doctor says your child has a fever but refuses to provide any proof, wants you to pay for expensive and long-lasting treatments immediately, and denigrates you by calling you “baby killer” around the nurses and people in waiting room when you refuse to take action without proof.
If my child had a fever and the doctor told me i would have to liquidate all my assets and move to a cave, yes, I would get a second opinion.
unfortunately, people will see “Heartland Institute” and dismiss it out of hand
If a doctor sees a child with a fever,….
…and tells you your child is going to die if you don’t give him all of your money
Make him show you the thermometer
If Prince Charles thinks a child with a fever is a child that’s dying, well, all I can say is he desperately needs to return to high school for a refresher course in remedial home economics. That imbecilic statement of his reminds me of when I was baby sitting two friends’ five year old child 18 years ago while they were out for the evening. The father cautioned me that their son was “groupy” – whatever that meant. At 3am the parents returned home, the mother instantly hitting the hay. The dad and I chewed the fat, chit chatted, shot the bull, discussed world events (ok, I’m done) for a bit till his five year old had woken up to a world of miserableness. Unable to locate a home thermometer the dad sent me on a perilous resupply mission to a neighborhood all nighter to buy one. Mission accomplished, I returned with the prize in hand and the father proceeded to take the child’s temperature. Well, the father measured his five year old son’s temperature at a phenomenal 111 degrees Fahrenheit. (That’s not a misprint.) Since we hadn’t put the child in a microwave I was a little suspicious of that temperature. Nonetheless the father proceeded to rush his child to the nearest emergency room, yours truly in tow and feeling a little silly sitting in the passenger seat and watching the red stoplights whiz by as the father blew every one of them. Thankfully it was now 3:30 in the morning: there was no traffic – or police. My friend, Father of the Year, carried his son up to the nurse and excitedly explained that his temperature was 111. I stood there feeling silly. The woman nurse gave us a look as if to say, “Men!?!” She then explained that dear old dad didn’t shake the thermometer down. She gave the child a couple of baby Tylenols and dad and I were back on the road, stopping for stoplights now. Returning home we cracked open a couple beers. Trust me, we didn’t give the five year old one. But maybe we need to give Prince Charles one, or two, or five, or six, or a few six packs until he calms down. Ditto for the IPCC, and all the warmers. Then, once the alcohol’s sobered them up a bit, we can explain that maybe their thermometers weren’t really shook down the way they’re trying to shake the people down. Then, maybe we can explain that fevers may very well be naturally occurring and that you don’t give a child (or an economic system) a double lung transplant for a fever for chrissake. As a renowned thoracic surgeon once explained to me, “We don’t do a lung transplant till the risk of dying from the operation is exceeded by the risk of dying from the disease.” Ok, all you warmers? Got it? Let’s not make society die in an operation that’s worse than the disease it purports to fix; assuming there’s even a disease in the first place.
The flaw in Prince Charles’ argument is that the planet is not dying.It’s not even sick.
Here’s my comment, which I think still is full of wisdom.
Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice. At this point, we’ve learn enough to know that the Statement For Policy Makers of past IPCC reports were all malpractice.
All I see from this report is that we are in for another six years of “looky here, lookie here” evidence.
Well if the doctor knows his thermometer is only accurate to >5C and the distribution of the error is not standard but biased to the high side, then it is time to get an accurate thermometer and actually see if the child has a fever.
New line of prescription: I’m afraid the earth has a cold. Send us money and we’ll tell you what to do –so we can save the earth for the children.
Obviously if a child has a temperature that has risen from 98.5 degrees to 98.7 degrees in one day you should assume the child’s temperature will continue to rise at the same or a higher rate for the next 100 years. Since the child’s temperature will increase 182.5 degrees to 281.2 degrees next year his lungs must be immediately removed.
This is backed up by well understood mathematics. A recent survey of top medical experts shows that 99.9% of all medical doctors agree that adding .2 365 times would in fact equal 182.5, that this temperature would be deadly, action should be taken if a child’s temperature rose over 100 degrees. The science is just too solid to do nothing.
I forgot to mention I also need 5 million dollars to further investigate and build a model. The stakes are too high to ignore this problem.
Joseph Bast says “This is probably the most important report on climate change ever produced. Its breadth and depth rival that of the IPCC’s reports. Its authors have no agenda except to find the truth.”
This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.”
What a spokesman to have on your side.
As a baby and toddler, my child always got fevers. High temp ones. But, they only lasted a few hours and his sickness only lasted for 24 hours. I learned this from studying him and his response to rising temperatures. I learned to not freak out each time a temperature would spike. If doctor had told me that during his next fever (or as Gore calls it, “FEVA”) that I would have to let my child undergo surgery to remove the single factor that was causing his temperature spike, I think I would cry foul.
But in today’s society, I would be arrested for bad parenting, jailed for hypocrisy, and my child removed and sent to hospital for state’s health and well-being.
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 7:05 pm
“This is same Bast who said for the cigarette industry that “no victim of cancer, heart disease, etc. can ‘prove’ his or her cancer or heart disease was caused by exposure to secondhand smoke.””
I see nothing wrong with that statement.
Of course we need to operate!
Surgically remove every alarmist from influential position.
Surgically charge the rich influential alarmists for every dollar plus interest spent on their falsehoods; charge them a penalty of at least three times both their costs to people, but $1 million for every death caused by the diversion of funds and acreage to global warming fear mongering.
I believe Prince Charles, it would be more accurate analogy would be:
Imagine you are a very insecure parent. In fact, so poorly informed and nervous, you are prone to suggestions about the well being of your child.
Then a person, let’s call Dr UN, comes to you and states they are a ‘special doctor’ and states they have observed your child and although you can’t verify these symptoms, he has a computer that models your child (even though it lacks significant fundamental physics, parameterizes vital organs and can’t model more than a few weeks in detail). He says the model predicts that in the future, terrible things will happen to your child’s health if you don’t change your lifestyle now and continue to pay Dr UN inc for ongoing lifestyle modification management, he predicts a series of catastrophic symptoms will develop on your child within the next decade leading to it’s certain death.
Shocked, you look for a second opinion. You find an obstetrician that says, “There is nothing seriously wrong with your child, these so called ‘symptoms’ have happened before and are quite common today.” Relieved, you go back to Dr. UN to suggest you can stop making payments now, but instead of him being pleased for your child, he makes wild personal attacks at the character of your obstetrician and states: “He is not a ‘special doctor.’ Even worse, he is a DENIER of the computer model and if you follow his advice it shows you hate your baby and are an unfit parent.
Fearing the worst, you pay Dr UN inc, but unfortunately, you haven’t been changing your lifestyle. In fact, you have increased the prohibited outputs. So well into the decade, as you are expecting the worst, you are startled and relieved that no such symptoms appear on your child. Once again, you confront Dr UN again and he replies: “Yes, you are right. The old model predicted that and it was not accurate enough, but my new model is improved now and it confirms the situation is worse for your child than we thought! If you don’t keep paying me into the future, your child is certainly doomed.”
Now Prince Charles, you have a choice: Keep paying people that call themselves ‘special doctors,’ or do the right thing by your child and GROW A PAIR!
Sorry, but there’s no other way to say this – Prince Charles is an imbecile.
Tom J:
I believe they meant ‘croupy’ not groupy; meaning that the kid is coughing a lot with an unpredictable harsh choppy cough.
Other than that, normal panicked parental unit lacking common sense, reading skills (as in reading directions especially), and other necessary adult type influences, (like asking for observational validity – from you).
ATheoK says:
September 16, 2013 at 7:11 pm
Of course we need to operate!
Surgically remove every alarmist from influential position.
Surgically charge the rich influential alarmists for every dollar plus interest spent on their falsehoods; charge them a penalty of at least three times both their costs to people, but $1 million for every death caused by the diversion of funds and acreage to global warming fear mongering.
*
Totally agree. Make them accountable and hit them where it hurts.
Pippen not so kool says ” what a spokesman to have on your side”……and you have al gore, the lying ipcc and computers that can’t tell tomorrow’s weather..
ATheoK
September 16, 2013 at 7:18 pm
says:
‘Tom J:
I believe they meant ‘croupy’ not groupy; . . .
Other than that, normal panicked parental unit lacking common sense, reading skills . . .’
How could you possibly know what went on? You weren’t there.