Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report
By Carter R.M., de Lange W., Hansen, J.M., Humlum O., Idso C., Kear, D., Legates, D., Mörner, N.A., Ollier C., Singer F. & Soon W.
September 14, 2014

In July 2014, Whitehead & Associates Environmental Consultants, in consultation with Coastal Environment and with funding from the NSW Government, produced a report for Eurobodalla Shire Council and Shoalhaven City Council titled “South Coast Regional Sea Level Rise Policy and Planning Framework, Exhibition Draft.”  A careful analysis of this report produced by a team of scientists assembled by the Nongovernmental  International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) finds it does not provide reliable guidance to the complicated issues of measuring, forecasting, and responding to sea-level rise.

The authors observe that wide variations in rates of tectonic uplift and subsidence in different locations around the world at particular times mean no effective coastal management plan can rest upon speculative computer projections regarding an idealised future global sea level, such as those provided by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Coastal management must instead rest upon accurate knowledge of local geological, meteorological and oceanographical conditions, including, amongst other things, changes in local relative sea level.

Written Evidence Submitted to the Commons Select Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament
December 2013

The Commons Select Committee of the U.K. Parliament in October 2013 opened an inquiry into the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as published in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The Select Committee solicited written testimony from hundreds of people and organizations, exploring “the conclusions of the IPCC, the extent to which the conclusions are robust, and their impact on national and international policy making.”

The written evidence reprinted below was submitted by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. It is available online, along with written evidence submitted by scores of other individuals and organizations, at the Select Committee’s website at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-ipcc/.

The testimony addresses the following questions:

• How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report?
• Have [sic] the IPCC adequately addressed criticisms of previous reports?
• How much scope is there to question the report’s conclusions?
• To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?
• Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5’s publication, if so which? What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?
• How effective is AR5 and the summary for policymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful?
• Does AR5 address the reliability of climate models?
• Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?
• Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?
• What implications do the IPCC’s conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report have for policy making both nationally and internationally?
• Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focused on providing a justification for political commitment?

Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’

By Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter , S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon
October 16, 2013

The Summary for Policymakers released in September 2013, by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is filled with concessions that its past predictions were too extreme and misleading and unscientific language, according to a team of scientists from the U.S. and Australia. The four distinguished scientists, part of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), offer a withering critique of the IPCC’s latest report.

Chinese Translation of Climate Change Reconsidered
Chinese Academy of Sciences
May 2013

Climate Change Reconsidered, a two-volume report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011, was translated into Chinese by a translation group organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, a working group of Scientific Information Center for Resources and Environment of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and published in May 2013 by China Science Publishing & Media Ltd. (Science Press).

A workshop on climate change issues was held in Beijing on June 15, 2013, at which four of the authors presented their findings to members of the Chinese climate science community. The workshop was followed by a conference featuring the NIPCC’s work, hosted by universities in Beijing.

“This is a historic moment in the global debate about climate change,” said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast. “The translation and publication of Climate Change Reconsidered by a division of the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences follows strong statements by scientists affiliated with the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Polish Academy of Sciences dissenting from claims that global warming is either man-made or a crisis. The trend toward skepticism and away from alarmism is now unmistakable.”

NIPCC vs. IPCC

By S. Fred Singer
August 2011

This booklet discusses:

(1) The central issue, the cause of global warming: Is it natural or is it manmade? We update the ongoing controversy. [This issue is of crucial importance for both climate science and for climate policy.]

(2) The chaotic uncertainties of climate models and how to overcome them.

(3) New thinking on Climategate, Hockeystick graph – and what we can say about the absence of post-1979 warming in the temperature data of the 20th century. [Is the reported 1979-1997 warming real?]

Conclusions:

(1) We have given here a description of the controversy about the cause of climate change in the 20th century. There is never any question about the observed increases in greenhouse (GH) gases or about their human cause. But we see no evidence at all that any of the tempe-rature changes are human-caused (anthropogenic). We certainly do not see any effect that can be traced to greenhouse gases, such as CO2.

(2) Climate models are known to be chaotic. None of current models have a sufficient number of runs to overcome chaotic uncertainty and therefore cannot be validated against observations.

(3) The global surface warming for 1979-1997, reported by CRU-Hadley, NCDC-NOAA, and GISS-NASA, and used by the IPCC to support its claim of a GH-gas cause, is problematic. It is not seen by any other observations; we cite six independent methods, incl. radiosonde, satellite, and proxy data.

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

Edited By S. Fred Singer
April 2008

When a nation faces an important decision that risks its economic future, or perhaps the fate of the ecology, it should do the same. It is a time-honored tradition in this case to set up a “Team B,” which examines the same original evidence but may reach a different conclusion. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was set up to examine the same climate data used by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

On the most important issue, the IPCC’s claim that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined by the IPCC as between 90 to 99 percent certain) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,” (emphasis in the original), NIPCC reaches the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause. Note: We do not say anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) gases cannot produce some warming. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a significant role.