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.
If he made that statement in the early days of the controversy, before more definitive studies had been published–as I suspect he did–then he’s hardly very culpable.
Marcos says:
“unfortunately, people will see “Heartland Institute” and dismiss it out of hand”
Only a fool would do that. For a foolish example:
Pippen Kool says:
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.
Pippen Fool:
I challenge you to produce one legitimate study that proves second-hand smoke is the cause of those diseases. Smarter people than you have tried, and failed.
The “second-hand smoke” canard was nothing but a political agenda in action. Now, the same kind of fools are claiming that “third-hand smoke kills.”
But while you’re scrambling to find your [non-existent], properly peer reviewed study proving that second hand smoke kills, maybe you can find one that claims third hand smoke is a killer. Both assertions are pseudo-scientific nonsense.
Moral: try to think for yourself. So far, it is clear you haven’t tried that approach.
Just last week, in fact, Pippen Fool stated: “Maybe people should check the data before making stuff up.”
Good advice, but PF doesn’t follow it.
Pippen Kool
September 16, 2013 at 7:05
says:
‘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.’
Out of curiosity I’d like to inquire if you are aware of the political donations Al Gore received in the past from the tobacco industry, or the fact that the family farm in Tennessee grew tobacco. Ok, now it’s my turn, ‘What a spokesman to have on your side.’ Fun little game, isn’t it?
“If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests…”
Start the leeches forthwith!
Prince Chuck is my contemporary, and he’s always been an embarrassment to us boomers. Long live the Queen.
In his favor though, let me say his jam packed schedule of speeches, openings, baby-kissing, hand-shaking, etc. would make a mound of irate fire ants look lethargic.
Tom J says: “Out of curiosity I’d like to inquire if you are aware of the political donations Al Gore received in the past from the tobacco industry, or the fact that the family farm in Tennessee grew tobacco.”
Pls instruct us on Gore’s advocacy for cigarette use. His family lived on a tobacco plantation, was that his fault?
He also inherited a mansion that uses more carbon than many houses. He also flies to rallies in jets. They use carbon too. And yet he has single-handedly made more of an impact on global warming awareness than any other single person even scientists
dbstealey says: “I challenge you to produce one legitimate study that proves second-hand smoke is the cause of those diseases. Smarter people than you have tried, and failed.”
Respiratory health effects of passive smoking: lung cancer and other disorders.Washington (DC): Environmental Protection Agency. 1992.
That took me about 5 seconds. Can’t you use Google? Let’s see, now you are going to tell me it’s the EPA so it can’t be trusted because you are a skeptic. Whatever, your problem
This Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science is a must-read, in my opinion.
I will put up links tomorrow.
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Gore Junior did not “live” on a tobacco plantation. He was born & raised in Washington, DC. Some summers, however, he did visit his family’s tobacco farm. Yet so proud was he of having handled the noxious weed then, that he famously boasted to Southern tobacco farmers when running for president in 1988 that, “Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”
But at the Democratic national convention in 1996, Gore gave a moving speech about his only sister’s painful death from lung cancer. Then he pushed the Clinton Administration’s aggressive anti-smoking campaign.
Yet he continued to accept checks from the family farm for years after his sister died. And he accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.
As for his Nashville mansion, it was not inherited. Gore’s dad Senior died in 1998. Prince Albert & Tipper bought their Nashville mansion in 2002.
Why would you lie about a fact so easily checked?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/
Then there is the other mansion they bought more recently, a nine million dollar seaside getaway in California, acquired shortly before he & Tipper got away from each other.
To this far from complete list of hypocrisies, please add the latest installment, ie selling his failed TV channel to oil-rich sheiks behind al Jazeera, thus finishing his family’s mult-generational affair with oil companies with questionable connections, begun with Occidental, whose president & CEO was Commie agent Armand Hammer, big donor to Senior’s campaigns.
Pippen Kool
September 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm
says:
‘Pls instruct us on Gore’s advocacy for cigarette use.’
I can’t instruct you on Gore’s advocacy for cigarette use. Can you instruct me on Bast’s advocacy? BTW: You didn’t comment on the fact that Gore accepted campaign donations from the cigarette industry.
‘His family lived on a tobacco plantation, was that his fault?
He also inherited a mansion that uses more carbon than many houses.’
Nothing prevents him from selling it. Also, could you be a little more specific as to what kind of carbon his mansion uses? Additionally, I’d like to ask if he inherited that additional mansion in Mendocito. Or, if he just bought it. And, does it come with a houseboat too? Or, is that a feature reserved to the Tennessee mansion?
‘He also flies to rallies in jets.’
He most certainly does.
‘They use carbon too.’
Um, not to put too fine a point on this, but when I drink water am I drinking hydrogen? Or oxygen? If I put salt in that water and gargle with it am I gargling sodium? Sodium hydrogen? Let’s get off this sloppy, lazy, carbon nonsense. It’s carbon dioxide bud. And Gore’s mansions (plural) and jet business trips (and they ARE business trips) don’t use carbon nor do they produce it (which is what I think you meant). They produce carbon dioxide. And so do you. And so does your pet dog if you have one. And so do the spiders in my house and the squirrels outside in the tree.
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm
And yet (Gore) has single-handedly made more of an impact on global warming awareness than any other single person even scientists.
——————————-
And yet his movie & subsequent well-remunerated statements on global warming were all packs of lies, which have cost lives & the world’s treasure for no good reason.
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm
“… And yet he has single-handedly made more of an impact on global warming awareness than any other single person even scientists.”
++++
Pippen: Could you elaborate on what good Al Gore has done? I take it you’re alluding that there is something Gore did that helped humanity in some way. Please be specific and provide something good that Gore has done.
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 7:05 pm
No, it’s the Bast who said “no tropical cyclone, tornado, etc. can ‘prove’ its formation was caused by exposure to global silliness.”
milodonharlani says: “Yet he continued to accept checks from the family farm for years after his sister died. And he accepted contributions from tobacco companies as late as 1990.”
Robbing the devil to play the angel. You know, he _is_ a politician.
“And yet his movie & subsequent well-remunerated statements on global warming were all packs of lies, which have cost lives & the world’s treasure for no good reason.”…
…in your opinion. But of course, you guys brought him up not me.
Tom J says: “Um, not to put too fine a point on this, but when I drink water am I drinking hydrogen? Or oxygen?”
I’ll bite. Yup. Like when cancer kills people, it kills men and women? Where are you going with this?
“If I put salt in that water and gargle with it am I gargling sodium? Sodium hydrogen?”
hydrogen?
“Let’s get off this sloppy, lazy, carbon nonsense. It’s carbon dioxide bud. ”
bud?
A plane uses some sort of kerosene. I don’t know exactly, but it is made mainly of carbon with a little hydrogen added to keep it liquid. So it does in fact use carbon, “bud”.
And, yes, I do emit CO2, but I can assure you that none of it comes from underground. Unfortunately, much of it comes from malt, barley and grapes, depending on what I am drinking.
Mario Lento says: “Could you elaborate on what good Al Gore has done?”
Google is your friend. Use it.
Ric Werme says:””
Could you explain your point?
Night people, on eastern time here……bye bye.
If the doctor prescribes that a hole must be drilled in the child’s head to release the evil spirits, more than a second opinion is required.
Kaboom gave the best analogy. The infancy of climate science is similar to medicine in the middle ages. Like medicine in the middle ages, when the concept of bacteria and viruses were unknown, the contributing factors and their weight to global temperature are not yet known either (as has been proven by Gaia herself). So yes, Prince Charles wants to drill a hole in the child’s head.
The last thing you want to do is listen to those who might know what they are talking about.
How will that keep the money flowing?
James Bull
If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can’t wait for [endless] tests… The risk of delay is so enormous
=================
nonsense. giving the wrong treatment can be more dangerous than giving no treatment. no wonder mommy won’t let him be king.
From the CDC:
Taking antibiotics when you or your child has a virus may do more harm than good. In fact, in children, antibiotics are the most common cause of emergency department visits for adverse drug events.
http://www.cdc.gov/features/getsmart/
Ah, that would explain your hampered judgement and incoherent ramblings. Do carry on.
In July 2009 Prince Charles gave a stark warming to industrialists. He said in a speech that we have only 96 months left to save the world. He also said that the “age of convenience” was over. Now compare the urgency of speech and the way he lives. He wants other to have less while he continues to have more. I’m not buying, pun intended.
“We are making it cool to use less stuff”
http://youtu.be/zhpNJAKq7dE
Absolutely correct. Would Prince Charles use homeopathy for that child? He has been a long time advocate of this type of treatment. Would he want a second opinion? The wrong treatment can also kill the child.
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm
Ric Werme says:””
> Could you explain your point?
It was to make other readers chuckle.
Latitude said @ur momisugly September 16, 2013 at 5:57 pm
You mean the thermometer that’s sitting in his coffee mug? :-)))))
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 9:10 pm
The EPA funds but does not do studies. Maybe that’s why you could give no link to a study? Even the title of the publication you produced does not say that passive smoking causes cancer.
The EPA says atmospheric CO2 is a “pollutant”. But since atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past, naturally and without a net deleterious effect, atmospheric CO2 cannot be a pollutant. CO2 is not even a “toxin”, or not anymore than water is a “toxin”. Water vapor is not a pollutant. It occurs at much higher concentrations and has a much greater “green house” effect over-all and per molecule than CO2. Therefore CO2 is not a pollutant.
The EPA incorrectly accepted the ipcc’s AR4 as applicable to the question of whether CO2 is a “pollutant”, and without peer reviewing it. The ipcc says it does not do science. The science contained in the AR4 was unable to provide even one correct prediction as to “mainstream” Climate Science’s hypothesis that CO2 “drives” climate.
The unfortunate result of the above, and much more, is that the EPA is no longer credible.
Pippen Kool says: @ur momisugly September 16, 2013 at 7:05 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bast is someone who understands statistics and science and doesn’t fall for the hysterics hype. Unfortunately for you he is correct about ” exposure to secondhand smoke.”
From William Briggs, Ph.D., 2004, Cornell University. Statistics. who like me does “not smoke cigarettes and never have. Nor I have ever received money or any consideration from any tobacco company, or, to my knowledge, any of their affiliates. “ (Actually I am very allergic to cigarette smoke.)
In a comment in Briggs article Selling Fear Is A Risky Business: Part Last
Other Briggs articles:
The Horrible Dangers Of Third-Hand Smoke
The Genetic Fallacy: He Works For An Oil Company!
Too Damn Sure: The Epidemiologist Fallacy
Statistics Proves Same Drug Both Causes And Does Not Cause Same Cancer
Pippen Kool: Thank you for pointing out the weakness of the report. It is funded by the Heartland Institute and the people involved can be attacked personally.
Thank you also for pointing out the strengths of the report (which you have done by omission).
Namely, the science is unimpeachable.
Now, the question for those of us who care about the environment is: What is the correct scientific advice to follow? Clearly, we both can see it is the NIPCC.
Your political interests are irrelevant to the planet or the needs of the people of the world. But the science matters.
Geoff Connolly says:
September 16, 2013 at 7:13 pm
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.
There is a psychological term for this, its called “Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy”. What it refers to is parents that are constantly paranoid that their child is suffering from some – almost always imaginary – medical condition. Children with such a parent are constantly being rushed to hospital when nothing is wrong with them. The parent’s loneliness, need for attention and gratification at the attention of medical staff and the ability to force people to listen to rambling narrative describing their child’s imaginary illnesses lie behind the condition.
The global warming scare is a similar psychological illness analogous to the “hypochondriac” condition prevalent in Victorian Britain a hundred and fifty years ago, where middle class folks luxuriated in obsessing about countless imaginary ailments, whose whole lives revolved around the latest set of bogus treatments for their imaginary illnesses.
You could call being an AGW activitst as being “environmental hypochondriac by proxy” where the environment is substituted for one own body.