"Climate Change Reconsidered" offers fresh perspective in the climate change debate
- The 2009 leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia revealed efforts by scientists to hide flaws, exclude skeptics and withhold data, raising serious questions about the transparency and credibility of the IPCC.
- The IPCC has been criticized for using non-peer-reviewed sources, such as environmental advocacy group newsletters, leading to retractions of claims about the Amazon rainforests, African crop harvests and Himalayan glaciers.
- The NIPCC report challenges the IPCC's assertion that most warming since the mid-20th century is due to human greenhouse gas emissions, arguing that natural causes are likely more significant. It highlights issues with climate models, the role of plant life in carbon sequestration, and evidence of historical climate variability.
- The report suggests that a warmer world could be safer and healthier for humans and wildlife, citing reduced winter deaths and potential benefits to plant growth and medicinal plant production.
- The NIPCC argues that the IPCC underestimates society's ability to adapt to climate change and suggests that the net effect of warming and rising CO2 levels is likely to be beneficial, challenging the IPCC's economic impact assessments.
In the ongoing discourse surrounding climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has long been the authoritative voice, issuing dire warnings about the consequences of human-induced global warming. However, a 400-page report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), titled "
Climate Change Reconsidered," offers a compelling counter-narrative that challenges the mainstream consensus. This 2011 interim report, authored by Dr. Craig D. Idso, provides a detailed examination of the scientific evidence and raises critical questions about the reliability of the IPCC's findings.
The NIPCC report begins by setting the stage for a more nuanced discussion of climate change. It highlights several key events that have shifted the conversation, including the publication of a book by Mike Hulme, a climate change professor at the
University of East Anglia (UEA)
. Hulme's admission of uncertainties within the climate change research community underscores the complexity of the issue. However, the most significant turning point came with "Climategate," the 2009 leak of emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA. These emails revealed efforts by leading scientists to hide flaws in their evidence, exclude skeptics from journals and withhold data from colleagues. This scandal raised serious questions about the transparency and credibility of the IPCC.
The NIPCC report further criticizes the IPCC's reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources, including environmental advocacy group newsletters. As a result, the IPCC was forced to retract claims about the Amazon rainforests, African crop harvests and Himalayan glaciers. The report also notes the political landscape, highlighting the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen conference to produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. Developing nations like China and India refused to commit to emissions restrictions, and the political realignment in the United States, with Republicans gaining control of the House of Representatives, made the passage of cap-and-trade legislation unlikely.
The core of the NIPCC report delves into the scientific evidence, challenging the IPCC's claim that most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is due to human greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, it argues that natural causes are likely to be dominant.
The report also delves into the role of solar forcing, arguing that it plays a larger role than previously recognized. It discusses potential mechanisms, including the perturbation of ocean currents, tropospheric winds and cosmic rays. The report suggests that the warming effect of chlorofluorocarbons prior to their removal from the atmosphere may have been underestimated, which could help explain the global cooling trend since 2000.
The NIPCC report criticizes the IPCC's peer-review process, citing the InterAcademy Council's findings of crippling flaws. It highlights the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and lead authors, as well as the arbitrary selection of authors. The report emphasizes the NIPCC's commitment to producing an independent evaluation of the scientific evidence. It stresses that the organization is not predisposed to believe that climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, allowing it to consider evidence that the IPCC ignores. The report also notes that the NIPCC receives no government or corporate funding, further underscoring its independence.
The NIPCC report "Climate Change Reconsidered" offers a fresh perspective on the climate change debate, challenging the mainstream narrative and raising important questions about the reliability of climate models, the role of natural variability, and the limitations of the IPCC's approach. As the global community continues to grapple with the challenges of climate change, it is crucial to base decisions on the best available science while acknowledging the uncertainties and complexities that surround this issue. The report serves as a reminder that critical thinking and a balanced view are essential in formulating effective and sustainable policies.
Watch this video about Dr. Craig D. Idso's "Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change."
This video is from the
BrightLearn channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
Brighteon.ai
Brighteon.com
