Dianna Cotter

Portland Civil Rights Examiner

NIPCC report states there is no anthropogenic global warming
May 23, 12:14 PM

In May 2006 we were told, with the most alarming language possible,
that humans were causing the planet to warm with their use of Carbon
based fuels. We must follow all of the recommendations of the IPCC
report coming out in 2007 or humanity's existence on earth would end.

We were told that we must do something now, in order to prevent the
deaths of untold millions, and the loss of humanity’s very ability to
survive on earth. We must start taxing "Global warming Gasses" in
order to stop their production, no matter the human cost!

It’s a complete lie.

The IPCC – the International Panel on Climate Change is a committee
with an agenda, and one it was pre-programmed to execute. It was
designed from the outset, from its very beginnings to come up with a
specific result. This is in direct contradiction to every principle of
real science, the aim of which is to describe reality as it is, not
reality as one wishes it to be.

To illustrate this, in 1995 the IPCC completely ignored Satellite
evidence, very clear evidence, that there was no warming according to
a report from the Heartland Institute Released in 2008. The full pdf.
is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate The institute
claims, and is backed by anecdotal reports that the IPCC changed
portions of the text of its report to make it appear that humans were
the cause of the warming they artificially detected, or in other
words, manufactured. Also attributed to the Heartland Institute’s
report, the IPCC ignored further data confirming the lack of warming –
if not showing a slight cooling – that became available after the May
2006 deadline.

The report the column speaks of is the NIPCC. The Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change. A completely independent
examination of all the evidence available in published peer-reviewed
literature. They included every single piece or evidence available to
them, positive and negative, they did not select research that proved
their predetermined result as the IPCC did. They went through
everything. Their conclusion, there is no human caused global
warming.

“The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations
made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to
convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report
claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the
now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published
in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes
in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence”

For anyone who has any sort of intellectual honesty at all, the report
from the Heartland Institute is a MUST read. Dr. Fred S. Singer who
conceived and directed the NIPCC project is an honored and decorated
scientist. His Raison d'être is truth, not political machinations, or
power. He is deeply concerned by the absolute mis-use of science in
what has now become a multi-billion dollar business, that is based on
what amounts to a hoax.

"The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [IPCC-AR4 200 "When new
errors and outright falsehoods were observed in the initial drafts of
AR4(The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [IPCC-AR4 2007]), SEPP
[Science and Environmental Policy Project] set up a ‘Team B’ to
produce an independent evaluation of the available scientific
evidence. While the initial organization took place at a meeting in
Milan in 2003, ‘Team B’ was activated only after the AR4 SPM appeared
in February 2007. It changed its name to NIPCC and organized an
international climate workshop in Vienna in April 2007."

This group of scientists, who have looked at all available evidence,
from satellite to very unreliable ground temperature readings to
historical records, concludes correctly; if Human governments are
going to be institution policies that will drastically affect the
lives of its citizens, and the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy
bill is without a doubt just that, then it must be utterly certain of
the science that backs the supporting reasons for the existence of the
legislation.

This report states unequivocally that there is zero evidence of man-
made global warming. We are about to kill a Nation, literally for hot
air that does not exist.

But wait, there mo

In an article titled Proved: there is No Climate Crisis written by
Robert Ferguson July 15th 2008, he reports on mathematical proof “that
there is no “climate crisis”.

“Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher,
demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s
climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for
the three variables whose product is “climate
sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas
increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on
temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published
in 2007.”

"Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century
a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial
levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F
predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord
Monckton concludes – “… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very
much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no
‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-
problem is to have the courage to do nothing.” "

Considering the likely ramifications of Waxman-Markley Cap and trade
energy bill, indeed, we must have the fortitude to re-examine honestly
all of the information available to us.

For those of you who believe whole heartedly in Man-made Global
warming, then these reports are a must read for you. They are peer
reviewed documents based in fact. If you are supporting legislation
that will wreck such economic devastation not only on your fellow
Americans but also on yourself, it should be read so that you can
counter those who do not believe in global warming caused by man.
Because you will have some explaining to do. Be cautioned however,
upon reading them, you will find yourself starting to realize that you
have been had.

On a Global scale.

Human caused Legislation like the Waxman-Markley Cap and trade energy
bill will do more harm to more people in a year, than human caused
Global Warming will in the next century. It is nothing short of a
massive money stealing scheme made by our Governement to pay for the
whorish excesses of the last 6 months.

Now that is an inconvenient truth.

On Sat, 23 May 2009 18:12:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Dianna Cotter

Portland Civil Rights Examiner

Here is a partial list (2009) of aliases this person has used while
posting to sci.environment.

From: "A thoughtful mourner" mantrap@
From:
From:
From: "Barack Obama"
From:
From: "Dr Crypto"
From: "Edmund Fitzgerald" mantrap@
From: "Eric Swanson" mantrap@
From: "Ian St. John"
From: "kiloVolts" mantrap@
From: "kilovolts" mantrap@
From: "kiloVolts"
From: "Leon"
From: "Leon Trollski"
From: "Mike Vandeman"
From: "Mike Vandeman" mantrap@
From: "milliAmperes"
From: "Ms. 2"
From: "Ms. 2" mantrap@
From: "Nicovar Inc."
From:
From: "Ravocin"
From: "Sarah Palin"
From: "Sanity"
From:

and now, this Calgary, Canada Based Fossil Fuel Troll claims to be..

From:


This carbon addicted troll has stated in Message-ID:

"ENVIRONMENTALISM IS A HATE CRIME!"


Needless to say.. this person is mentally unbalanced..

wrote in message
...
Dianna Cotter

Portland Civil Rights Examiner

NIPCC report states there is no anthropogenic global warming
May 23, 12:14 PM


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-nipcc-report/

Not the IPCC (“NIPCC”) Report

Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt

Much in the spirit of the Fraser Institute's damp squib we reported on last
year, S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed
by the notorious "Heartland Institute" we've commented on previously) served
up a similarly dishonest 'assessment' of the science of climate change
earlier this year in the form of what they call the "NIPCC" report (the "N"
presumably standing for 'not the' or 'nonsense'). This seems to be making
the rounds again as Singer and Heartland are gearing up for a reprise of
last year's critically…er…appraised "Conference on Climate Change" this
March. Recently some have asked us for our opinion of the report and so
we've decided we ought to finally go ahead and opine. Here goes.

The fact that the very title of the report summary ("Nature, Not Human
Activity, Rules the Climate") itself poses–at best–a false dichotomy is not
an auspicious start. The fact that the fonts and layout are identical to the
real IPCC report is another indication that this isn't quite on the level
(and reminiscent of the infamous fake PNAS paper that accompanied the first
'Oregon Petition').

Reading the table of contents, the report has eight chapters (in addition to
an introduction and conclusions chapter). Five of these, quite remarkably,
have titles which are simply untrue. The remaining three chapters pose
loaded questions which are disingenuous and misleading, if not outright
dishonest, with 'answers' provided by the authors. In fact this is such a
massive regurgitation of standard contrarian talking points and discredited
canards, it's obvious that reviewing this would be a herculean task (which
is presumably the point - if you can't convince people with actual science,
bludgeon them).

However, precisely because most of these points have been made before, there
exists a large body of work pointing out the flaws already. So instead of
regurgitating these counterpoints, we will simply link to an index of these
rebuttals. As some of you may know, we have a set up a resource to do
precisely this; the RealClimate Wiki. Let's see how this works…

Chapter 2 "How much of modern warming is anthropogenic" throws out the
standard, itself now discredited, "the hockey stick is discredited" claim,
and adds in the old favorite "CO2 doesn't lead it lags". We also get
'observations and model predictions don't match', 'the warming doesn't
coincide with the greenhouse gas increases', and of course 'the instrumental
record isn't reliable'. Naturally, we were a bit disappointed not to
encounter the granddaddy of all contrarian talking points, But they
predicted global cooling in the 1970s!.

On to chapter 3, "Most of Modern Warming is Due to Natural Causes". The
short answer to the title of the chapter is, of course, "ummm, no, its not".
The chapter draws in equal parts from the twin canards that its all just
natural cycles, and 'its the sun!.

If you're growing impatient for model-bashing, no fear; there's a whole
chapter for you (Chapter 4: "Climate Models are Not Reliable"), which offers
up the usual mix of straw man descriptions of how climate models actually
work, and red herrings about supposedly missing feedbacks and processes.
Fortunately, RealClimate wiki provides some one-stop rebuttal shopping.

The falsely-titled chapter 5 ("The Rate of Sea-Level Rise is Unlikely To
Increase") rests upon incorrect claims that sea level rise projections are
exaggerated, and or that the IPCC supposedly lowered their projections of
future sea level rise. Chapter 6 ("Do Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases Heat
the Oceans?"), if we take it literally, asks a rather embarrassing question
('No grasshopper! The greenhouse gases are 'gases'. They heat the atmosphere
and surface and a warmer atmosphere transfers some of that heat to the ocean
below. You still have much to learn.'). Chapter 7 ("How Much Do We Know
About Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere?") answers the question it asks with
the usual nonsense about how the increase in CO2 is probably natural, or
that we can't trust the CO2 record, and that CO2 isn't rising as quickly as
projected anyhow. And chapters 8 and 9 offer the requisite disclaimer for
contrarians that, even after you've debunked everything they've said so far,
and come to the inescapable conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is
(1) real, and that (2) future changes will be profound if we continue with
business as usual, 'it will be good for us anyway'..

In concluding, We'd like to level with our readers. Some of us thought that
the "NIPCC" report was so self-evidently nonsense that we shouldn't even
give it the benefit of any publicity. But it does give a great opportunity
to give the RealClimate 'wiki' a test ride. We hope to expand this resource
in the future, and we'd actually welcome some additional outside help. (In
fact, much of it is already due to some dedicated volunteers. Thanks!). So
if you have a desire and the time to help organise this effort, drop us a
line and we'll set you up.