Tomorrow, 9:00am Press Conference with the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is holding a press conference tomorrow morning, Wednesday, April 9, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on the subject of the recent publication of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.
Credentialed media are invited to attend to learn more about the report and question some of the scientists who produced it:
Details
What: Breakfast press conference with authors and reviewers of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts
When: Wednesday, April 9, 8:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Where: National Press Club, Bloomberg Room, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC
Who: Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute; Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Craig D. Idso, founder and chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; and other speakers to be announced.
Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts is a 1,062-page report containing thousands of citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature. It concludes rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels are causing “no net harm to the global environment or to human health and often finds the opposite: net benefits to plants, including important food crops, and to animals and human health.”
Click here to read the full report in digital form (PDF). An 18-page Summary for Policymakers is available here. Print versions of the full report and the summary will be released by NIPCC in Washington, DC the week of April 7. Individual chapters of the full report can be downloaded at the Climate Change Reconsidered Web site. (Look at middle of page and scroll down.)
For more information about the report, NIPCC, and The Heartland Institute, contact Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/731-9364 (cell).
——————————————————————————–
The Heartland Institute is a 30-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, visit our Web site or call 312/377-4000.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of scientists and scholars who first came together in 2003 to provide an independent review of the climate science cited by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NIPCC has produced five major scientific reports so far and plans to release one more in the coming weeks. These reports have been endorsed by leading scientists from around the world, been cited in peer-reviewed journals, and are credited with changing the global debate over climate change. No corporate or government funding was solicited or received to support production of these reports.
worth reading all, including the comments:
8 April: NJ Star-Ledger: Paul Mulshine: Climate ‘consensus’: Is carbon dioxide the new cholesterol?
Last month, the prior consensus was turned on its head by a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. A meta-analysis of 76 studies and clinical trials showed no link between fat, even saturated fat, and increased heart-disease risk.
I discussed this yesterday with Meir Stampfer, who is a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. Stampfer said the move to low-fat diets might have actually increased obesity and heart-disease risk. That’s because people tended to substitute refined carbohydrates for fat in their diets, Stampfer said…
So is there a new consensus that “Butter is back” as one op-ed piece in the Times recently stated?
Nope, said Stampfer. He and his Harvard colleagues disagree with those who are promoting saturated fats from dairy and red meat. The Harvard crowd argues that people would be better off consuming more olive oil and seafood.
But that’s a healthy disagreement. As for that prior consensus, the consensus is that it did not hold up.
“This is complicated and the policymakers tried to make it simple,” Stampfer concluded.
“But it’s better to be complicated and right than simplified and wrong.”
It is indeed, and I would encourage my fellow journalists to keep that in mind in light of the highly touted “consensus” on the role of carbon dioxide in promoting global warming.
Climate science is infinitely more complicated than human physiology…
Perhaps you disagree. Fine, but you’re disagreeing with a guy who calculated the number of atoms in the sun when he was 5 years old and who’s been at the institute since Einstein was walking the grounds.
Science requires taking the long view, said Dyson when I called him the other day.
“Science of course is always correcting mistakes,” he said. “That’s what it’s all about.”
It is indeed. What it’s not about is consensus.
That’s for editorial writers.
COMMENTS: If you’re going to comment here, please make particular points about actual scientific studies, as I have above. Do not merely parrot the consensus…
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/climate_consensus_is_carbon_dioxide_the_new_cholesterol_mulshine.html
[snip – this is not your place- mod]
Big non-coal Corps with the CAGW program! LOL.
8 April: Guardian: BT, Shell and corporates call for trillion tonnes of carbon to stay in the ground
Trillion tonne communiqué signed by 70 companies calls for rapid response to rising emissions, reports BusinessGreen
Unilever, Shell, BT, and EDF Energy are among 70 leading companies today calling on governments across the globe to step up efforts to tackle climate change.
The companies, which have a combined turnover of $90bn, say the world needs a “rapid and focused response” to the threat of rising global carbon emissions and the “disruptive climate impacts” associated with their growth.
In a communiqué coordinated by The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group, the signatories demand governments put in place policies to prevent the cumulative emission of more than a trillion tonnes of carbon, arguing that passing that threshold would lead to unacceptable levels of climate-related risk.
The statement urges political leaders to set a timeline for achieving net zero emissions before the end of the century, design a credible strategy to transform the energy system, and create a plan to tackle the global economy’s reliance on fossil fuels, especially unabated coal power…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/08/bt-shell-corporates-trillion-tonnes-carbon
@ur momisugly lee April 8, 2014 at 6:46 pm “That wouldn’t be the multi-listed 2007 prize would it?;)”
Yes, indeed, our NIPCC critic Dr Wuebbles (having his own tag designation at WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/donald-wuebbles/ ) blesses us with his own interpretation of that Peace Prize accolade at his LinkedIn resumé page http://www.linkedin.com/pub/don-wuebbles/10/645/910 “He shares in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the international Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Remember, the IPCC said such descriptions were not correct: “The prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organization, and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner.” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/nobel/Nobel_statement_final.pdf
What a bunch of crap this is. You guys are looking more and more desperate. You’ll have Fox News, the Weekly Standard and anyone else who attends will be doing so to expose you for the fossil-fuel-funded-frauds that you are.
REPLY: Be careful Pat Ravasio, you’d make a prime candidate for a defamation lawsuit saying things like that, and I don’t think it would be good for your real estate business – Anthony
Is this why IPCC rushed their pranks to April Fools’?