The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has been vigorously attacked by some environmentalists and global warming alarmists who view it as a threat to their claim of a “consensus” in favor of their extreme views. We reply to some of their specific comments in the essays linked below. Most of these criticisms simply recycle claims about science, consensus, and The Heartland Institute that have been debunked many times already. For a broader reply to the critics of Heartland and NIPCC, please click here.

For reviews of CCR-II by real scientists, go here.

Heartland Institute Replies to the National Science Teachers Association
April 24, 2017

Heartland Replies to Reps. Grijalva, Johnson, and Scott
April 3, 2017

Heartland Replies to Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes
January 11, 2016

Heartland Replies to Physics Today: Spencer Weart’s One-sided and Incomplete History of Climate Policy
October 22, 2015

Response to Keith Peterman, a Critic of Climate Realists and the NIPCC Report
April 28, 2014

Response to the British Parliament’s Request for Critiques of the IPCC 5th Assessment Review
December 17, 2013

Reply to Emil Karlsson, “NIPCC and Climate Change Denialism,” DebunkingDenialism.com
October 31, 2013

Reply to Graham Wayne, “US school infiltration attempt by Heartland’s IPCC Parody”
October 30, 2013

Reply to Steven Newton, “The Alternative Reality of the Heartland Institute’s ‘NIPCC’ Report”
October 28, 2013

Why Would These Scientists Lie?
October 14, 2013

Reply to Michael J.I. Brown, “Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience”
September 26, 2013

David Suzuki Attacks Climate Science
September 25, 2013

Reply to ClimateScienceWatch.com, “Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test”
September 9, 2013