« Hurray for parents who cheat | Main | Olympic Lanes »

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change Report

S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008. - Pdf

Click, download, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest.

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the
principal IPCC conclusion that the reported
warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the
human emission of greenhouse gases. In other
words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible
for current warming. Policies adopted and called for
in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are
unnecessary.
It is regrettable that the public debate over
climate change, fueled by the errors and
exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC,
has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an
embarrassment to science that hype has replaced
reason in the global debate over so important an
issue.

Comments

Thanks for the tip. Heavy duty stuff, but interesting just the same.

Singer has been widely debunked over very many years and is funded by ExxonMobil; perhaps not the best source of information, or at least not a source to be read in isolation. Government responses are not appropriate, I agree, and they're mostly ridiculous, but in careful reading and consideration of as many different points of view as I can lay my hands upon I cannot conclude otherwise than human activity is causing runaway climate change. Our world is far smaller than we think and carbon rich fossil fuels a lifetime in the creation are being burnt in such a tiny geological timeframe. Everything we wear, eat and do is on the greasy and dirty backs of oil and coal. Each calorie of food we consume uses around 100 calories of oil to produce and transport. And oil extraction has peaked, it all gets much harder from here on.

Ali

Why do I so often see "so and so has been debunked and he/she is funded by such and such"? Who debunked him and where? How do you know his funding source? Show me specifics. Did someone tell you that? Too often the debate devolves into name calling in insinuating conflict of interest, without any proof. Stop it. If you can't prove your points, it tells me that you don't have a scientific leg to stand on. Give me links to specifics and I'll believe you.

He recieved an unsolicited $10,000 from Exxon by his own admition. He is not on their payroll or funded by them. Furthermore, his credentials are excellent on this topic.

I've read this document in full and I have to say that I find the arguments very reasonable.

You will find that there have been six extreme El Ninos without any extreme La Nina's since 1976, which I think you will find has been the main driver for warming in the past 30 years. Extreme La Ninas predominated from 1950 to 1975 which correlates with the global cooling of that period.

I'm of the opinion that the following ALL influence climate: greenhouse gases (of which the most important is water vapour, not carbon dioxide), deforestation, solar activity/cosmic ray activity, and other poorly understood phenomena influencing ocean warming.

I'm afraid that rapid warming occurred from 1850 to 1940 without large amounts of carbon dioxide and I simply will not accept the green evangelists passing this off as minimal. It's scale was larger than the recent warming.

I don't know the real answer, but I am sure that the current arguments are driven by politics, not science.

If that's what everyone wants, then fine. Although far better to say: 'We need taxes to run the country - how are we going to raise them?'

But let's stop forcing people to train as scientists, only then to ostracise them when they use their scientific arguments to refute political claptrap which poses as science.

I've read this document in full and I have to say that I find the arguments very reasonable.

You will find that there have been six extreme El Ninos without any extreme La Nina's since 1976, which I think you will find has been the main driver for warming in the past 30 years. Extreme La Ninas predominated from 1950 to 1975 which correlates with the global cooling of that period.

I'm of the opinion that the following ALL influence climate: greenhouse gases (of which the most important is water vapour, not carbon dioxide), deforestation, solar activity/cosmic ray activity, and other poorly understood phenomena influencing ocean warming.

I'm afraid that rapid warming occurred from 1850 to 1940 without large amounts of carbon dioxide and I simply will not accept the green evangelists passing this off as minimal. It's scale was larger than the recent warming.

I don't know the real answer, but I am sure that the current arguments are driven by politics, not science.

If that's what everyone wants, then fine. Although far better to say: 'We need taxes to run the country - how are we going to raise them?'

But let's stop forcing people to train as scientists, only then to ostracise them when they use their scientific arguments to refute political claptrap which poses as science.

Post a comment