One Stop Source of Authoritative and Documented Information
By Charles G. Battig, MS, MD, science writer

Climate Change Reconsidered – 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will reward the reader searching for a one-stop source of authoritative and documented information on the multifaceted topic of climate change. In contrast to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), this encyclopedic volume appears to have no preset agenda serving to support the claim of catastrophic, manmade climate disruption. Instead, numerous research papers are quoted and referenced which serve to illustrate the complexity inherent in understanding the scope of the topic and the natural drivers of climate, along with the difficulty in convincingly attributing such changes to human origin.

This compendium of referenced papers on a variety of climate related topics is informative in itself, but along the way also serves to counter many of the IPCC claims of anthropogenic causation and climate model validity.

The ten main chapters cover topics ranging from Climate Models and Their Limitations” to “Economic and Other Policy Implications.” The open-minded reader will appreciate finding the material presented accessible to those without a background in the climate sciences, yet referenced papers accompany the narrative text for those wishing to delve deeper.

Highly recommended.

 

A Huge Debt of Gratitude
By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs 

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those courageous scientists that stood their ground against the global warming fraud. Recently the Heartland Institute, in concert with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project, published “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report.” It is 430 pages co-authored by Dr. Craig D. Idso, Dr. Robert M. Carter, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, all of whom have been among the scientists repeatedly slandered as “global warming deniers” and “skeptics” for their efforts to educate the public.

The report, in careful documented, scientific language identifies the way the warmist’s computer models over-estimated the amount of warming, ignored the fact that increased carbon dioxide benefits plant growth, that there is less melting in the Arctic, Antarctic and on mountain tops than claimed, and that there is no sign of acceleration of sea-level rise in recent decades.

A recent Rasmussen survey indicates that upwards of 60% of Americans have concluded that humans have nothing to do with “global warming” or any other aspect of the climate. This is extraordinary when one considers how the mainstream media, the curriculums in the nation’s schools, and the unceasing efforts of major environmental organizations have tried to impose the global warming claims on the public.

 

An Extraordinary Achievement
By Paul Driessen, JD

The 2011 edition of Climate Change Reconsidered is a quite extraordinary achievement. It should put to rest once and for all any notion that “the science is settled” on the subject of global warming, or that humanity and our planet face an imminent manmade climate change disaster.

Prepared by eleven highly accomplished US, Canadian and Australian climate researchers and scholars, this 430-page report is not just extensively researched and footnoted. It covers every important aspect of climate change, climate research, and the positive and negative effects of energy use, carbon dioxide, and global warming and cooling – on plant and animal species, and human lives and livelihoods.

Equally important, the introductory overviews to each of the ten chapters are easy to read and comprehend, even for people who don’t have extensive backgrounds in science, economics, statistics or public policy – meaning most of the population. The overviews cover all the most vital issues addressed in each chapter, and do so in a way that makes Climate Change Reconsidered especially valuable for legislators, regulators, journalists, corporate executives, judges, educators and other people who need to know and understand issues that are being used to justify major changes in the energy, economic, agricultural, corporate, legal and social structures of every nation.

Three vitally important conclusions are inevitable from reading this report. First, our knowledge of climate change, its causes and effects is in its infancy. We cannot afford to base fundamental energy and other public policy decisions on elementary knowledge, computer models and assertions by a UN-sponsored panel of experts that have been roundly and properly criticized for violating nearly every canon of scientific analysis, integrity, transparency and accountability.

Second, both recorded human history and Earth’s geologic history make it abundantly clear that climate change is nothing new. Our planet and its human, plant and animal inhabitants have experienced frequent, profound, often sudden and frequently disastrous warming and cooling, flood and drought cycles over millions and billions of years. Nature rules our planet – not humans or manmade “greenhouse gases.” The complex and powerful forces that govern our climate are still only poorly understood, and far more potent than anything humans do. Moreover, throughout history, periods of warming have been beneficial for all our planet’s species, whereas periods of cooling have often been disastrous.

Third, coping with and adapting to climate changes require ingenuity, technology, energy and wealth. However, it is precisely these essentials – especially access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy – that are most at risk under the agendas being promoted by global warming (climate change) alarmists. That in itself is another reason why legislators, regulators, judges and voters should read this report.

In short, Climate Change Reconsidered is a thoughtful, thought-provoking, cool-headed antidote to the alarmism that has been driving far too many policies, laws, regulations and other decisions all over the world in recent years. It underscores the “precautionary principle” that SHOULD be applied here: Climate alarmists must prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that we face an imminent manmade climate disaster, and that their “solutions” will avert that disaster, without creating even bigger problems – before any such prescriptions are implemented. They have a long way to go to make that case.

 

Like Showing a Cross to a Vampire
By Peter Ferrara, forbes.com, 21/01/2011

The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists over whether man’s use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism. The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in the 856 page, Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for climate patterns of the last century. Heartland has just published a follow up 416 page Interim Report updating the debate.

When you run across a Knight Templar threatening you with a lance and a sword unless you confess the truth of catastrophic man caused global warming, ask him for his rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered. You will find the effect is like showing a cross to a vampire. Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false.

 

Worth far more than its weight in gold
By Tom Harris, president, International Climate Science Coalition

From the perspective of the International Climate Science Coalition, this book, “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” is worth far more than its weight in gold.

The value of this document is that it really has two parts – one, a brief “Introduction” at the beginning of each chapter that anyone, even people untrained in the field, can quickly read to understand, in general terms, where official climate science is off base. The second part of each chapter goes through the evidence for each introduction.

No one anywhere in the world has ever produced a document of this nature that is so easy to read, directly applicable to today’s most discussed topics, and yet so extensively referenced.

While it is worthwhile to read the whole report, of course, reporters and government officials need to at least read the introductions to get a handle on what the UN IPCC has done wrong or misrepresents.

History will record the NIPCC as the most significant contribution any person or group on the climate realist side of the debate made to helping society get back on track towards making climate and energy decisions that actually help the environment and society.

Congrats to Heartland and their lead science editors as follows for this massive and important work: Craig D. Idso, PhD; Professor Robert Carter, PhD and Professor S. Fred Singer, PhD.

I boost this document whenever I speak or appear in media and always direct people to the site […] There is nothing like it anywhere else.

 

Climate Change: The Science
By Roger Helmer (Member of the European Parliament)

Maybe it’s because of the huge success on the Amazon Best-Seller lists of popular books debunking climate hysteria that true believers insist that “there is no peer-reviewed science challenging the consensus on climate change”. Maybe these claims are also based on prejudice, hubris and a good dash of financial interest and rent-seeking.

Of course they’re wrong even in their own terms. Many of the popular best-sellers include copious and detailed references to peer-reviewed science. Even “State of Fear”, the Michael Crichton novel based on the climate issue, while avowedly fiction, foot-noted a great deal of serious science.

And as the old proverb has it, people in glass houses should be very careful about throwing stones. We’ve been told many times that the regular IPCC reports represent a clear consensus of the Scientific Community on the issue, and are based solely on peer-reviewed science. If only. As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, many of the more outlandish and alarmist claims in the IPCC reports have been based not on peer-reviewed science, but on “grey literature”– the propaganda sheets and press releases distributed by fanatical green NGOs (many of which are part-funded by the European Commission – but that’s another story).

But for those who prefer their science hard-core, not populist, hope is at hand. Indeed it’s been at hand for some time, in the form of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) Report. First published in 2009, we now have the updated “2011 Interim Report,” published by the Heartland Institute (whose conferences I have been privileged to attend). http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html

The report is authored by Fred Singer and Craig Idso (USA), and Robert (Bob) Carter of Australia — all of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. I have hosted Fred Singer in Brussels more than once. All three are acknowledged experts in their respective fields. Fred is a distinguished atmospheric physicist and environmental scientist. Bob Carter is a geologist specialises specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science.

Their report is not easy reading for non-scientists, though the executive summary is very accessible. Many will treat it as a highly authoritative source of reference. It is in particular a standing rebuke to all those alarmists who deny the existence of hard science supporting the sceptical case. And it makes considerable use of material quoted in the alarmist IPCC reports – some of which, properly interpreted, supports the case against the alarmist “consensus”.

The authors say “we are not saying that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot produce some warming, or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role”. And they add “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife”.

Given the increasing realisation that climate mitigation efforts are creating an economic crisis, and increasing popular scepticism about the alarmist scenario, this is a timely publication, and a key resource for all of us who are arguing for common sense.

 

Study Claims Global Warming is ‘Beneficial’ for Human Health
International Business Times, September 15, 2011

A new study by three non-profit climate research organizations has claimed that global warming is more likely to “improve rather than harm human health.”

The study by Heartland Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) says “mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.”

However, this “finding” completely contradicts the observations and predictions of most researchers in the world. It directly challenges the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

The “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report” was co-authored by a team of scientists recruited and led by Craig D. Idso, Robert Carter and S. Fred Singer.

It asserts that manmade greenhouse gases do not play a “substantial role” in climate change and that previous reports about the effects of global warming overestimated the situation and “failed to incorporate chemical and biological processes, which are as important as the physical ones.”

However, the conclusions of the study contradict the findings of the widely cited reports of the IPCC and many climate research organizations. The IPCC says that human activities (manmade greenhouse gases) are actually responsible for climate change. According to it, CO2 contributes to the melting of polar ice caps, rising sea levels, reduced Arctic ice cover and alarming changes in the environment.

The authors of the new report say “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.”

The report says that “global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths.”

The researchers found that global warming “benefits” not only mammals but amphibians, birds, butterflies and insects also benefit from its myriad ecological effects.

The reports also states that the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago was both “global and warmer than today’s world.”

The latest research reveals that corals and other forms of aquatic life have effective adaptive responses to climate change enabling them to flourish.

It says that averting hunger and ecological destruction in the future can be done by increasing crop yield, which will be aided by rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Climate Change: Global Warming May be Beneficial
By Rebecca Terrell, The New American

“Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health,” according to a new study published by three non-profit climate research organizations. Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report directly challenges findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes regular assessment reports used by governments worldwide, including our own, to form public environmental policy. The 430-page report includes data largely ignored by IPCC.

Editors of the study conclude anthropogenic (manmade) greenhouse gases (GHG) “are not playing a substantial role” in global temperature increases during the past century, contrary to IPCC claims that human activities are to blame. They acknowledge that rising levels of GHG certainly contribute to climate change, but they find natural sources to be the main cause. Furthermore, the authors hail this as a harbinger of good things to come, explaining “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife.”

A press release promoting the report points out the IPCC is “already under severe criticism for violating the requirements of academic peer review and relying on secondary sources.” Climate Change Reconsidered presents major peer-reviewed scientific evidence refuting UN claims.

One key finding is evidence that IPCC climate models used to estimate warming fail to include several important environmental variables and therefore routinely over-estimate results. The report finds no proof to back up IPCC hysteria that blames CO2 for melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, disastrous changes in ocean circulation, or calamitous differences in precipitation patterns and river flows.

In fact, the report staunchly defends positive effects of carbon dioxide. “More CO2 promotes more plant growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the world’s oceans,” the authors explain. “This vast assemblage of plant life… [tends] to counteract the heating effects of CO2’s thermal radiative forcing.” Ecological effects include increasing crop yields, improving adaptive responses of aquatic life, and health benefits for both people and animals.

The study also reveals Earth’s average temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period, which spanned the prosperous 10th to 13th centuries, were warmer than current temperatures even though there was 28 percent less atmospheric CO2 then. And it predicts more weather-related prosperity. “Even in worst-case scenarios, mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today, and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.”

Three organizations sponsored Climate Change Reconsidered: The Heartland Institute, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change,and the Science and Environmental Policy Project. The main authors are Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., editor of the online magazine CO2 Science, marine geologist Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a research professor at Australia’s James Cook University, and atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., who was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Eight other climate researchers contributed to the study. The team is already working on a follow-up volume due for publication in 2013.

The full report is available here at the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) website.

 

Other sightings…

The book was required reading for a course called “Climate Change Leadership – Power, Politics and Culture,” Spring Semester 2012, CEMUS Education, Uppsala Centre for Sustainable Development, CSD Uppsala, Sweden.

The book is cited in this peer-reviewed article: Karen Akerlof, Katherine E. Rowan, Dennis Fitzgerald, and Andrew Y. Cedeno, “Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science,” Nature Climate Change, May 20, 2012, DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1542.

The book has been frequently cited by Tom Harris, president of the International Climate Science Coalition, in op-eds and letters to the editor and in interviews on radio and television in Canada and world-wide.

“I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.”

Kumar Raina
Former Deputy Director General
Geological Survey of India

 

“I was glad to see that a new report was coming from the NIPCC. The work of this group of scientists to present the evidence for natural climate warming and climate change is an essential  counter-balance to the biased reporting of the IPCC. They have brought to focus a range of peer-reviewed publications showing that natural forces have in the past and continue today to dominate the climate signal. Considering the recent evidence that climate models have failed to predict the flattening of the global temperature curve, and that global warming seems to have ended some 15 years ago, the work of the NIPCC is particularly important.”

Ian Clark
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Ottawa, Canada

 

“The CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc.  There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies.”

S. Jeevananda Reddy
Former Chief Technical Advisor
United Nations World Meteorological Organization

 

“NIPCC’s CCR-II report should open the eyes of world leaders who have fallen prey to the scandalous climate dictates  by the IPCC. People are already suffering the consequences of sub-prime financial instruments. Let them not suffer more from IPCC’s sub-prime climate science and models. That is the stark message of the NIPCC’s CCR-II report.”

M. I. Bhat
Formerly Professor and Head
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Kashmir

 

“The claim by the UN IPCC that ‘global sea level is rising at an enhanced rate and swamping tropical coral atolls’ does NOT agree with observational facts, and must hence be discarded as a serious disinformation. This is well taken in the CCR-II report.”

Nils-Axel Mörner
Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics,
Stockholm University, Sweden

 

“Library shelves are cluttered with books on global warming. The problem is identifying which ones are worth reading. The NIPCC’s CCR-II report is one of these. Its coverage of the topic is comprehensive without being superficial. Itsorts through conflicting claims made by scientists and highlights mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide increase is lower than climate models have until now assumed.”

Chris de Freitas
School of Environment
The University of Auckland, New Zealand

 

“Climate Change Reconsidered is simply the most comprehensive documentation of the case against climate alarmism ever produced. Basing policy on the scientifically incomplete and internally inconsistent reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no longer controversial – Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is absolutely foolhardy, and anyone doing so is risking humiliation. It is a must-read for anyone who is accountable to the public, and it needs to be taken very, very seriously.”

Patrick J. Michaels
Director, Center for the Study of Science
Cato Institute

 

“CCR-II provides scientists, policy makers and other interested parties information related to the current state of knowledge in atmospheric studies.  Rather than coming from a pre-determined politicized position that is typical of the IPCC, the NIPCC constrains itself to the scientific process so as to provide objective information.  If we (scientists) are honest, we understand that the study of atmospheric processes/dynamics is in its infancy.  Consequently, the work of the NIPCC and its most recent report is very important.  It is time to move away from politicized science back to science – this is what NIPCC is demonstrating by example.”

Bruce Borders
Professor of Forest Biometrics
Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources
University of Georgia

 

“The NIPCC’s new report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, fires a scientific cannon shot across the bow of the quasi-religious human-caused global warming movement by presenting data, facts, and scientific method constructs of climate change science. I only wish the IPCC would become as objective. A recent column by a nationally recognized writer recalled Syria outlawing yo-yos in 1933 because they thought that yo-yo motion caused drought. The NIPCC report documents that the AGW movement has created its own yo-yo rather than shedding light on how Earth dynamic systems change with time.  I applaud the NIPCC for bringing the scientific method back into what should always have been a scientific debate.

Lee C. Gerhard
Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas
Past Director and State Geologist
Kansas Geological Survey

 

“I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the  whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between  several ‘schools of thought,’ in science and well as other disciplines , many of which  jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily. Climate, and even more  so impacts and responses, are far too complex and important to be left to an official body like the IPCC.”

Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
Hull University
Editor, Energy&Environment

 

“The NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered II is a crucial document to get science right: Billions of $$ are being spent in research based on the assumption that human emissions of CO₂ drive dangerous climate change. Contemplating relevant peer-reviewed scientific literature, the CCR-II shows us why this basic assumption is wrong, turning irrelevant for society the results of a considerable part of the costly research carried out by the ‘consensus scientific community’ endorsing IPCC climate alarmism.”

Albrecht Glatzle
Agro-Biologist
Retired Director of Research, INTTAS

 

MORE REVIEWS:

A Realistic View of the Climate
By John Hinderaker, Power Line, Sep 18, 2013

Political Climate
By Staff Writers, ICECAP, Sep 19, 2013

New Science Report Debunks Climate Scare
By Staff Writer, ICSC, Sep 17, 2013

Real Climate Science the IPCC Doesn’t Want You to See
By Paul Driessen, WUWT, Sep 19, 2013

Still no Warming…..Except Between IPCC and NIPCC!
By Geoff Brown, NCTCS, Sep 21, 2013

Evaluation of ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II – Physical Science’
By Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Principia Scientific, Oct 29, 2013

A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism
by Steve Goreham, Sept. 11, 2013

Back at Ya, IPCC: ‘Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science’ (Part II)
by Paul Driessen, MasterResource.com, September 24, 2013