A press release from the International Climate Science Coalition.

NIPCC report now seen as more reputable

(click here to see last week's ICSC news release in which both 'ocean acidification' and the new NIPCC report were addressed)

Ottawa, Canada, September 27, 2013:  "No one should trust the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report issued today in Stockholm," said Professor Bob Carter, Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) and former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. "The IPCC has a history of malfeasance that even includes rewording recommendations of expert science advisors to fit the alarmist agenda of participating governments."

NIPCC report (click here
is now seen by an increasing number of
scientists as more credible than the
reports of the IPCC.
Carter continued, "The credibility of the IPCC has also been irreparably damaged by:
  • Regular, serious science errors;
  • Ignoring research that sheds doubt on the dangerous human-caused global warming hypothesis;
  • The resignation of leading IPCC scientists because of their distrust of its procedures;
  • Student theses and reports by environmental groups treated as equivalent to peer-reviewed science papers in IPCC assessment reports;
  • IPCC scientists attempting to manipulate the scientific literature toward their alarmist stance."

Tom Harris, ICSC executive director predicted, "The Working Group I Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) released today will almost certainly exaggerate the findings of the full science report to be issued next week. This happened in previous years largely because the final version of the SPM is not produced by the scientist writers and reviewers of the full report who do not even see the official SPM before it is published. Instead, the final say lies with governments, whose political representatives go through the SPM line by line and decide on its final form."

IPCC expert reviewer Dr. David Wojick explained, "…What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment."

Climate data analyst John McLean of Melbourne Australia warned, "In previous IPCC assessment reports, media were tricked into reporting that thousands of climate experts endorsed the chapter in which the causes of climate change were discussed. In fact, only a few dozen scientists even commented on that part of the document. At today’s news conference in Stockholm, reporters should insist that the IPCC reveal how many climate experts actually reviewed and agreed with each of AR5’s most important conclusions."

Madhav Khandekar, former Environment Canada Research Scientist, said, "No matter what the IPCC bureaucracy claim, climate science is not even remotely settled. Contrary to forecasts of all the computer models cited by the IPCC, there has been no warming for the past 17 years despite an 8% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration. Earth's climate is robust and is not being destabilized due to human-added CO2. In fact, the rise in CO2 has acted as a fertilizer, enriching forestry and other plant growth. Regardless, the modest warming of the 20th century was generally beneficial in terms of longer growing seasons."
"There were as many notable extreme weather events during the 1945 - 1977 cooling period as there are today," Khandekar continued. "And my calculations show no escalating sea level rise for next 10 to 25 years and possibly beyond."

Dr. Tim Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, observed, "Inexplicably, the IPCC have increased their confidence, from 90% (AR4 in 2007) to 95% (AR5 in 2013) that anthropogenic greenhouse gases caused most of the warming of the past half-century despite the fact that all of their forecasts have failed. Their confidence should have dropped, leading governments to take a more cautious approach. Instead, this IPCC report will give governments such as that of U.S. President Barack Obama unjustified confidence to impose CO2 regulations so severe that the world’s most important energy sources, hydrocarbon fuels, will be phased back sentencing billions of the world’s most vulnerable people to the misery of energy poverty.

"The IPCC’s reputation is now beyond retrieval. Their process, methods and science are complete failures," Ball concludes. "Governments, media and the public should turn instead to Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, the new report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Citing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, and independent of government interference, CCR-II present the science as it is, not as it can be spun. And it shows something everyone, left, right and centre, should welcome—the balance of the evidence indicates that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide.

SOURCE International Climate Science Coalition
 For further information:

For more information about this announcement visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org, or contact:
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng.
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
Ottawa, Ontario
Phone: 613-728-9200
Email: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net