Sane NIPCC Scientists Trump Insane IPCC Political Alarmism

To the Honorable Congressman X:

I first took an interest in global warming after I read the IPCC’s 1990 report entitled, “Climate Change – The IPCC Scientific Assessment,” and noticed it failed to consider water clarity (turbidity) and its effects on depth of solar heating. As an avid skin/scuba diver and water sports enthusiast, I had observed in the mid-1980s that the Army Corps of Engineers’ (ACOE) Mississippi River levy system largely prevents annual Spring flooding, channeling the lions share of alluvial runoff to proceed downstream.  This fact is well noted by the Mississippi River Delta’s increased growth rate since the levy system was installed.  Not only has this result in significantly increased growth of the Mississippi River Delta, but it also significantly increases the turbidity of the waters in the Gulf of Mexico, leading to both warmer surface temperatures and colder temperatures at depth.  This phenomenon is repeated around the world, wherever levies and similar river flood mitigation techniques are used.

When I noticed the IPCC’s initial 1990 report lacked any mention or even consideration of water turbidity and heating depth, I began to wonder what else was missing. Indeed, over the next two decades I consulted with a number of scientists on the issue and we found plenty of gaping holes in the IPCC’s reports (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, 2014).  I also discovered that scientists had broken into two camps: Those who wholeheartedly backed the IPCC assessments and those who reluctantly admitted the IPCC reports both fail to consider a number of factors affecting or mitigating climate change while summarily dismissing others.  As Mr. Praeger has resoundingly documented, the “97% of climate scientists agree” argument is pure bunk.  The latter group and I have highlighted many missing elements, efforts which eventually lead to the creation of the NIPCC:

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming.”

Although I possess both bachelor of science and master of science degrees, I also hold an MBA. I graduated top of my class in both masters programs. My educational background is heavy on both engineering and business, specifically, finance, management, and administration. Thus, when read the Conclusion to the NIPCC’s report entitled, “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels,” it wholeheartedly confirmed literally thousands of hours of previous discussions, while acknowledging the IPCC’s numerous oversights:

“IPCC and national governments around the world
claim the negative impacts of global warming on
human health and security, occurring now or likely to
occur in the future, more than offset the benefits that
come from the use of fossil fuels. This claim lacks
any scientific or economic basis. Nearly all the
impacts of fossil fuel use on human well-being are
net positive (benefits minus costs) or are simply
unknown. The alleged negative human health impacts
due to air pollution are greatly exaggerated by
researchers who violate the scientific method and rely
too heavily on epidemiological studies finding weak
relative risks. The alleged negative impacts on human
security due to climate change depend on tenuous
chains of causality that find little support in the peer
reviewed literature.

“IPCC and its national counterparts have not
conducted proper cost-benefit analyses of fossil fuels,
global warming, or regulations designed to force a
transition away from fossil fuels, nor are they likely
to do so given their political agendas. The CBAs
conducted for this volume find the social benefits of
fossil fuels exceed the costs by a wide margin. A
forced reduction of GHG emissions to 90 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050 would require that world
GDP in 2050 be reduced to only 4% of what it is
projected to be in that year. Most regulations aimed
at reducing GHG emissions have costs that are
hundreds and even thousands of times greater than
their benefits.

“The global war on fossil fuels, which commenced
in earnest in the 1980s and reached a fever pitch in
the second decade of the twenty-first century, was
never founded on sound science or economics. The
authors of and contributors to Climate Change
Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels urge the world’s
policymakers to acknowledge this truth and end that

Congressman X, I wholeheartedly encourage you and your colleagues in Congress and the executive branch to review the NIPCC’s “Climate Change Reconsidered” series of volumes ( Therein you will find the sanity that so elegantly counters the IPCC’s irrational and alarming projections which lacks significant data elements which run counter to their idealism and mantras.

As the American Thinker well notes:

“How could two international teams of scientists, economists, and other experts arrive at opposite conclusions? Therein lies a story.

“The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific body. It was formed by the United Nations in 1988 for the purpose of establishing the need for a global solution to the alleged problem of anthropogenic climate change. Note that the mission of the IPCC was never to study the causes of climate change; were that the case, it might have devoted some of its billions of dollars in revenues over the years to examining solar cycles, changes in ocean currents, the sensitivity of climate to greenhouse gases, or the planet’s carbon cycle. The IPCC has spent trivial sums on these issues, and the authors of and contributors to its voluminous reports have few or no credentials in these fields.

“Now consider the NIPCC. It is a scientific body composed of scholars from more than two dozen countries, first convened in 2003 by the great physicist S. Fred Singer and later chaired by another great physicist, Frederick Seitz. The NIPCC’s only purpose is to fact-check the work of the IPCC. It receives no corporate or government funding and so has no hidden agenda or axes to grind. Most of its participants volunteer their time; a few receive token compensation for many hours of effort.

“The NIPCC views the claim that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change to be a hypothesis to be tested, not a preordained conclusion. It asks whether the null hypothesis – that changes in climate are natural variability caused by a multitude of forcings and feedbacks – has been disproven. Its research reveals thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed science journals supporting the null hypothesis, meaning that the IPCC’s mountains of data and expressions of “confidence” are irrelevant, meaningless, and ultimately wrong.”

Indeed, the NIPCC has a number of outstanding reports, and unlike the IPCC’s political attempts to sound scientific, the NIPCC volumes were researched, written, and published by actual scientists:

Climate Change Reconsidered II:

Climate Change Reconsidered:  2011 Interim Report

Climate Change Reconsidered:  2009 IPCC Report

Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming


Leave a Reply