Climate Science Without an Agenda

[XLFD]

Science, like religion, can be corrupted by its practitioners when they decide to co-opt the basic dogma and beliefs of their system into an earthly or political agenda.  And whereas faith is a virtue in the religiously devout, the opposite of faith, doubt, is necessary in the scientist.  They can believe in a hypothesis before experimentations and observations are made, but if that hypothesis proves false, they need to abandon those beliefs in deference to the scientific method they employed.

 

It is becoming increasingly common to hear of dissent among the scientists that in the past have claimed global warming (aka climate change) is indisputable, harmful, and caused by man, to change their tune, as the science proves to be disputable.  A group of scientists without sponsorship by any government or governmental organization have come forth over the last few years to look more objectively at the data as it comes in.  Their findings are quite different than the one's sponsored by the United Nations and other progressive-minded governments, who have a vested interest in some of the doomsdays projected by the progressive-minded scientists, several which have not come to fruition.  The following group is taking them on, by resorting to good old-fashioned scientific methods, objectivity, and conclusions.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, is an international panel of
scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate
change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or government
agency.

NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific
agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.

 

NIPCC traces its beginnings to an informal meeting held in Milan, Italy in 2003 organized by Dr.
S. Fred Singer and the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). The purpose was to produce an independent evaluation of the available scientific evidence on the subject of carbon dioxide-induced global warming in anticipation of the release of IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

 

NIPCC scientists concluded IPCC was biased with respect to making future projections of climate change, discerning a significant human-induced influence on current and past climatic trends, and evaluating the impacts of potential carbon dioxide-induced environmental changes on Earth’s biosphere.

 

The human impact on global climate is small, and any warming that may occur as a result of human carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on global temperatures, the cryosphere (ice-covered areas), hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, and rivers), or weather.

 

• Global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation.

• Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.

• Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.

• No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.

• Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.

• A phase of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild warming of the twentieth century. Similar periods of warming and cooling due to natural variability are certain to occur in the future irrespective of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (CCR-IIb), the subject of this Summary for
Policymakers, examines the scientific research on the impacts of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels on the biological world (Idso et al., 2014). It finds 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.

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts is the second of three volumes in the Climate
Change Reconsidered II series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change (NIPCC). Together, they represent the most comprehensive and authoritative independent review of climate science available from any source. They were commissioned and are offered as an alternative to the alarmist reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The first volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered II series, subtitled Physical Science, was released in September 2013. It demonstrated there is no dangerous human interference in Earth’s
climate. This finding by itself is logically sufficient to dismiss nearly all of the negative climate-related impacts predicted by IPCC. Nevertheless, there is a huge literature on the impacts, costs, and benefits of rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels that demonstrates climate change, whether natural or manmade, is not a crisis. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts expertly surveys that literature.

 

Biological Impacts broadly tracks and critiques the work of IPCC’s Working Group II, which is
expected to release its report on the impacts of climate change around the same time as this report is presented. It appears IPCC is continuing its pattern of selectively reporting data to present an alarmist view of the impacts of climate change.