All hail the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Posted by William M. Connolley on March 3, 2008
(20)
More »

Via a wiki edit (which I rather unkindly sabotaged, though I doubt my version lasts for long) I discover the grandly named “Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change”. DeSmog reports that its thick on the ground at the septic extravaganza.

The existence of the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” outside SF’s mind is uncertain; as indeed is the report: I can certainly find the summary, but the report itself is ellusive, or possibly illusive. The summary, oddly enough, is copyright SEPP, which makes you think it might have been written by SEPP, but how can it be, when its the report of the NIPCC. Or is the NIPCC SEPP in disguise? You may be wondering, is this report wacky enough to be worth reading? The trite answer is no, its the same old tosh all over again, but it does have the bouncing Czech (warning: following that link does terrible things to my browser, and thats even without reading the content, which will do terrible things to your brain :-) listed as an author, so Lubos fans can Czech him out (arf arf). We learn that the NIPCC is “not sponsored by the United Nations, national governments, or industry”. But we don’t learn anything positive about. I did find the utterly bizarre “The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) first met in Milan in 2003, then was activated after the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers appeared in February 2007. The team changed its name to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)”. What a cunning plan, I can see the conversation now: “I say chaps, we’ve been rumbled. Quick, lets change our name from what it is now to *exactly the same thing*. That will fox ‘em!”.

Strange things happen when you’re not around

(20)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 Gavin
    2008/03/03

    I think we can refer to this simply as “Not the IPCC” despite the (I’m sure coincidental) rather similar typeface and layout.

  2. #2 IanR
    2008/03/03

    Interesting. He kept your characterisation of the pub.

    [Is that weird or what. I think it needs to die though. It gets about 12 google hits, and if I'm lucky my blog will probably be its top hit soon enough -W]

  3. #3 Nathan Rive
    2008/03/03

    The Summary claims that it is the “second opinion” of the AGW facts, presumably an antidote the IPCC. Now, given that it’s all written in the spirit of science, I assume that the writing process of the NIPCC report was the same as the TAR/4AR – along with invitations for the review of early drafts, and public site where we can soon view those reviews and replies?

    Kidding aside, I’m looking forward to hearing more about what went on at the Heartland Institute conference. Anyone know if someone (other than DeSmog) is blogging it?

  4. #4 mugwump
    2008/03/04

    The comment thread on that DeSmog link is far more entertaining than the post. God, how I loathe the warmenistas.

  5. #5 Brian Schmidt
    2008/03/04

    There may be some international trademark issues regarding the NIPCC. Not my field though, unfortunately.

  6. #6 Steve Bloom
    2008/03/04

    IIRC there was a Canadian (Friends of Science?) alternative “report” issued more or contemporaneously with the WG1 report. Is Singer’s effort just a reformatting of that?

  7. #7 Nathan Rive
    2008/03/04

    For those interested, here are three links from the Business and Media Institute that include embedded clips from the Heartland Conference:

    http://tinyurl.com/2wu3zz
    http://tinyurl.com/36mr7m
    http://tinyurl.com/2wzjxg

  8. #8 cce
    2008/03/05

    Of course, the real reason why the SPM is released separately from the body of the non-report, is so the NIPCC officials have time to shape the non-science. And when will the reviewer comments be posted? I want to see the reasons why my 500 requests to replace the word “thermometer” with “temperature measuring device” were rejected.

  9. #9 Brian D
    2008/03/05

    CCE:

    Rejected. The reviewer provides no supporting funding for the proposed change.

    ;)

    You’d think with this ‘NONGOVERNMENTAL’ summary, talks titled things like “Global Warming or Global Governance’, and the phrasing of their ‘manhattan declaration’ that even the most diehard skeptics would realize they’re making a political statement and masking it (or at least attempting to, poorly) as a scientific one.

    I’d be satisfied (briefly) if they at least stopped lying to themselves.

    Steve Bloom: I seem to recall reading about that as well. I’ll see if I can dig it up; note that if it was concurrent to the TAR, then the FoS probably weren’t the people responding to it (as they started in ’02), even though it would perfectly match their tactics.

  10. #10 Ian Forrester
    2008/03/05

    Steve, it was the Fraser Institute (another Canadian junk science site) that brought out the alternative report.

    A discussion can be found here on DeSmogBlog:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/fraser-institute-ipcc-london-report

  11. #11 Hank Roberts
    2008/03/05

    I wonder how common Siegfreid is as a first name.

  12. #12 Svante's Poodle
    2008/03/06

    mugwump… some folks think with the thing between their ears, some with the thing between their legs.

  13. #13 mugwump
    2008/03/07

    mugwump… some folks think with the thing between their ears, some with the thing between their legs.

    Thankyou Poodle! Finally someone who can help me. You see for years I’ve not been able to understand how Mann et al could possibly conclude that recent warming is unprecedented for at least 1000 years, given that they provide no valid cross-validation studies and given the obvious divergence in the latter part of the 20th century between the temperature record and the tree-ring chronologies.

    But I’ve known all along that it is only because I think with my d*ck whereas Mann thinks with his brain. So Poodle, please, please put me out of my misery: what is the justification for their conclusion?

  14. #14 Dano
    2008/03/07

    What is the justification in your world, m, for the conclusion that the reason ships disappear when they go out to see is that they drop below the horizon? Have you cross-validated this yourself?

    Best,

    D

  15. #15 mugwump
    2008/03/12

    What’s your point Dano? That statistical climate science studies don’t require cross-validation? Why not, when every other scientific field demands it?

    Of course, if AGW is Revealed Truth rather than science, your position makes a lot more sense.

  16. #16 Bemused (But always Polite)
    2008/04/20

    As someone yet to be convinced of the arguments advanced to support the notion that CO2 emissions are the main reason for global warming, I am horrified to read the vitriolic replies of those who seem terrified of those, such as myself, who continue to hold an open mind.
    Clearly, there is now a whole new global army of mankind for whom any apparent opposition to the theory – and that is all it can ever be – as advanced by the IPCC is the modern heresy which must be howled down and as much scorn as can be mustered heaped upon their perceived enemies.

  17. #17 guthrie
    2008/04/20

    Ok, so what will convince you to change your mind? If you are trying to be scientific, there will be several things which would change your mind. What are they?

  18. #18 Mike
    2008/04/21

    Out of all the postings, “bemused” is the only one demonstrating an open mind. Like him, I have never been convinced that CO2 was the main reason for global warming. There is too much evidence that there are other greater factors. AND the biggest green house gas is Water Vapour which even the IPCC admit, but ignore.
    The IPCC is political and thus totally biased. I wish all strength to SEPP and NIPCC with their continued analysis.
    Let’s have a real debate, not a blinkered one and lets make the most of the climate changes while it lasts. But it looks at the moment that it may not. I would be very happy to have the temperature a few defrees on average higher.
    AND who says that the average temperature that we currently have is actually ideal?

  19. #19 guthrie
    2008/04/21

    Claiming that one has not yet made up ones mind yet not providing any evidence that you have considered the matter at hand, as I requested they do, is not open mindedness.
    The IPCC is not political, it is scientific. You clearly have no clue as to what is science and what is not. If you could point to the political bits of the Stefan Boltzman equation, for example…

    You want a real debate, lets have one.
    So, you want the temperature a few degrees higher. How much? Where do you live? What will the effects be of higher temperatures on people other than yourself?

    I fully expect you to run a mile from actually putting up a substantive post, but we shall see.

  20. #20 Charles
    2009/06/02

    Just because you drank the cool aid and cannot understand science does not mean that the NIPCC is lying to themselves, from my point of view the only lying being done is to the global poplulation to create another phantom trading system of CO2 so the wealthy get wealthier and so the ones who need energy like emerging countries will continue to get poorer. Look at the evidence and stop believing what you see on TV (which from what i remember has solely been entertainment and propaganda to sell the public on whatever idea or product they choose)

    [I think you've mistaken me for someone else, guv. I agree that you shouldn't get your science, or indeed any other info, from TV. I agree that the carbon trading scheme is stupid - we need a carbon tax. But the only lying being done is is nonsense - the vast septic progaganda machine is lying to you -W]