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.
Nick Kermode says:
“heavy smokers… lengthen their multi billion dollar a year drain on the US economy.”
Like your other assertions, that one is simply wrong. According to The Economist, cigarette smokers provide a net benefit to the health care system because smokers on average tend to die earlier, and faster, than non-smokers. They don’t tend to linger on for years, being a constant drain on the system. Lung cancer tends to kill quite rapidly. My mother and father were both smokers, and once diagnosed, they didn’t last long at all; only a matter of months.
But like your other strawman comments, you avoided my central [and really my only] point:
No one has PROVEN that 2nd and 3rd hand smoke causes measurable premature deaths. As compared to what, may I ask? People living downwind from a coal power plant? People living next to an inner city freeway? People working in asbestos mines? The FDA used the second hand smoke canard to increase its power and regulatory reach. Even if 2nd-hand smoke had been proven to kill bystanders in statistically significant numbers, I think you have an issue with personal freedom. But one thing is certain: smokers are not a drain on the U.S. health care system as you mistakenly assume.
Since you cannot discern between ‘proof’ and ‘opinion’, feel free to express your opinion. Just be aware: that’s all it is. Opinion. Because you have no verifiable, testable, reproducible proof of your assertions about second and third hand cigarette smoke. Just because you believe it, that does not constitute proof — which has been my entire point all along.
kevstest says:
September 17, 2013 at 2:36 pm
I’m looking forward to seeing the NIPCC rebuttals.
Why be so gloomy? we can’t afford to control IPCC climate change, we don’t have the resources either and it would be impossibly unjust. See here where theology trumps (dodgy) science: http://revfelicity.org/2013/09/17/god-in-climate-change/
This deacon is not alone.
The other day I read a snippet that described a talk being given by a past Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to the Sydney Institute, on Climate Change and the Environment.
The title is ‘One religion is enough’.
Pippen Kool says:
September 16, 2013 at 10:17 pm
That Gore’s spew is a pack of lies is not my opinion but that of a British court of law.
A child is ill and we dont have the time to diagnose him correctly:
Lets cut off his arms and legs in case something is bad in them, and put him on chemotherapy.
He will thank us later..
dbstealey says:
September 17, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Nick Kermode says:
“heavy smokers… lengthen their multi billion dollar a year drain on the US economy.”
Like your other assertions, that one is simply wrong. According to The Economist, cigarette smokers provide a net benefit to the health care system because smokers on average tend to die earlier, and faster, than non-smokers.
I tend to agree with dbstealey, the lynching of cigarette smokers, the kangaroo court of epidemiology (a “discipline” up there with AGW in terms of scientific rigour (not) and political corruption) are symptoms of a creeping puritanism in western society. In the light of the latest public lynching of Dr Phil, we now have to get used to the new fact that if we have sex with a woman who has drunk any alcohol in the previous week we could find ourselves in jail as rapists. These puritanical public agency busy-bodies (who know little about alcohol, sex or smoking) have nothing better to do with their lives than spuriously inflating the risks of smoking (first, second, third, nth hand), drinking, socializing, sport, in fact of doing anything other than fattening ones bottom behind a government agency desk interfering in other people’s lives – data has to be massaged to “prove” that all these are activities get more dangerous by the day, so more and more regulation, tax and interference are needed.
I like going to China. Everyone smokes and no-one gives a damn. You can still smoke in restaurants.
Nick Kermode says:
“heavy smokers… lengthen their multi billion dollar a year drain on the US economy.”
If you took away cigarette manufacturers taxes overnight the resulting economic collapse would be worse than 2007, especially if you add alcohol and petrol. By far the biggest, most helpless addicts to tobacco, alcohol and petrol are high-taxing governments. In Europe practically all the price of petrol, tobacco and alcohol goes straight to government with a tiny fraction of overhead for distribution. Governments say “stop smoking, drinking, driving” but they don’t really mean it. Do as we do, don’t do as we say.
@phlogiston- Very true. Many states use the tax for the S-Chip program. By ostracizing smokers, people are penalizing the children.
(and yes, that is a big /sarc)
phlogiston,
Agree completely. I have been saying for a long time that governments are more addicted to tax money from cigarettes than smokers are to nicotine.
Many smokers kick the habit. But I know of no government anywhere that has ever reduced tobacco taxes.
If governments truly wanted to protect the health of citizens, they could easily make cigarettes illegal. But they don’t care about that. They want that tax money. They’re hooked on it.
phlogiston,
I also agree with you. Just went back through my post and chucked that in as a bit of a red herring,or maybe more of an anecdotal fallacy. Helps give an insight as to who one is engaging with on the internet.
DBStealy, couldn’t agree more with your post at 4:49pm. They are addicted to the tax money and also can’t afford the 20-30 (?) year lag in healthcare costs that would need to be paid after revenue ceased. Also as you say earlier smokers don’t live as long, so dying just before retirement, or earlier, is win-win for the government. It’s a no brainer for them 😉
Cheers, Nick
The Heartland Insitute has no credibility in convincing foks.
They are just like the worst of the AGW alarmists.
With their billboards associating mass murderers with AGW alarmists…they should have no place in the Climate discussions. The Nippc has no crediability being associated with these guys.
I love this site..as a skeptic….But why does Mr. Watts associate with Heartland?
Science and real data is on our side as skeptics.
Several of my posts have seen to go away. It’s most likely I can’t find them….Or maybe this site does not like to hear from an ally who disagrees with it’s tactics.
@JeffWhitman Sky – Seminar poster.
If you are sincere (doubtful), how about you research the Heartland. And please post your findings.
The IPCC and its adherents and policy producers are hammer-holders who see nothing but nails, nails, wherever they look.