This morning, I had the pleasure of participating in a conference call/presentation with the free market Heartland Institute. It was intended to be an announcement of and preview of a newly-released report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) titled “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.”
For background purposes, the Heartland Institute was founded 29 years ago in Chicago and is committed to advocating a domestic free market. The NIPCC was founded in 2003 and consists of a wholly independent group of scientist committed to finding the truth about climate science.
This report is the result of collaboration among Heartland and two other organizations: the Science & Environmental Policy Project and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. It was coauthored and coedited by:
-Dr. Craig D. Idso (a geologist and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change);
-Dr. Willie Soon (an astrophysicist and geoscientist published in many academic journals); and
-Dr. S. Fred Singer (an atmospheric and space physicist and Director of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project.)
The moderator of the discussion was Jim Lakely, Communications Director of the Heartland Institute.
The 1500-page report provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmists reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are highly selective in their review of climate science and controversial with regard to their projections of future climate change. It was described as an “encyclopedic volume” of the global warming phenonemon, filled with the findings of (and direct quotes from) thousands of scientists. (Turns out many of these scientists make claims contradictory to our friends in the United Nations.) A team of 47 scientists worked on the report over several months.
Unlike most of the “scientists” touted by liberal politicians and the mainstream media, these ones I heard from today spoke very professionally and sounded genuinely committed to their profession rather than to some personal agenda. They pointed out that “skepticism” used to be a good thing; but now with global warming, it is bad all of a sudden. Likewise, “consensus” used to be a bad thing; but with global warming, it is celebrated.
I think it is pretty clear at this point in the discussion over global warming that science has nothing to do with it.
This is not the first report the NIPCC has released. Its first report, an independent examination of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change, was published in 2009, and an interim report was published two years later challenging the IPCC doom-and-gloom narrative.
Needless to say, the NIPCC found the IPCC to be heavily biased, with their claims full of distorted facts and exaggerated claims. They reviewed thousands of peer-reviewed studies that disputed the UN and concluded that the international global warming body was either biased or negligent, as well as misleading the scientific community.
In short, these nonpartisan scientists provided a “scientific balance.” They found weaknesses in the much-touted scientific models and noted that not a single one of them validated concrete climate observations. They have not explained why the earth has not been warming over the past 15 years. Or how the Antarctic ice has been growing steadily.
The report consists of seven detailed chapters that include full citations and direct quotes. All consisting of independent, agenda-free findings.
Dr. Soon admitted they were “not afraid of (UN) authority” and called the claims of the IPCC “patently false” and lacking proof. He also added that his fellow scientists need to “avoid either/or propositions” and keep an open mind (which they should be doing anyway.)
While the scientists stated that they believe the climate is changing and that man is playing at least a small role in said change, they admit they simply do not know for a fact that it is because of CO2 admissions.
In response to the question of a reporter from an institute supporting the ideas of Ayn Rand, Ron Bass, also of Heartland, endorsed the idea of a separation of science and state, calling it a “wonderful idea” in line with the thinking of our Founding Fathers.
Dr. Soon added that “we will say when we’re wrong,” as Dr. Singer noted the irony that the IPCC says that they are “unbiased” in their research. “We are just trying to get to the truth.”
Mr. Bass concluded the call by saying that “careers have to come to an end” so that the debate over the causes of climate change can start anew, maybe ten years from now. He added that he has faith in the younger generation, who he believes are much more likely to question things with their frequenting of the internet and alternative media.
This commentary originally appeared at EPAAbuse.com and is reprinted here with permission.