How many times are we going to have to read:-
“
The scientific validity of the claims made by the NIPCC report have been heavily criticized,[3][4] as has the methodology of their reports and the lack of expertise of many of their authors.”
No kidding! WE KNOW!
The funny thing is that the people who have been utterly conned into believing that spending massive amounts of money (and making the rich vastly richer) will make a measurable difference to climate change, just do not get it.
it is governments and politicians that are doing this. So listing your government funded sources and ‘proofs’ is just counter-productive.
ANYBODY that says one sentence pointing out the lack of validity in any of the horror and scare stories published by the GOVERNMENT FUNDED IPCC or any one of the other, probably hundreds of thousands of businesses involved in the ‘WAR’ against climate-CHANGE,
can expect to see there name tarnished and vilified from a multitude of directions!
The NIPCC, they have no chance.....
However, here are comments on the book that people like the distinguished climate scientists Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., and S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.have produced: (Btw, I haven’t checked but doubtless there has something wrong found with the mental state of each of those and they been banished somewhere in the meantime..)
‘Climate Change Reconsidered’ is simply the most comprehensive documentation of the case against climate alarmism ever produced. Basing policy on the scientifically incomplete and internally inconsistent reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is no longer controversial – Climate Change Reconsidered shows that it is absolutely foolhardy, and anyone doing so is risking humiliation. It is a must-read for anyone who is accountable to the public, and it needs to be taken very, very seriously.
— Patrick J. Michaels, Director
Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute
[T]here are several chapters in the NIPCC report that are substantially more thorough and comprehensive than the IPCC treatment, including 5 (Solar variability and climate cycles), 7 (Biological effects of carbon dioxide enrichment), 8 (Species extinction) and 9 (Human health effects). Further, the NIPCC’s regional approach to analyzing extreme events and historical and paleo records of temperature, rainfall, streamflow, glaciers, sea ice, and sea-level rise is commendable and frankly more informative than the global analyses provided by the IPCC.
— Dr. Judith Curry, professor and chair School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Georgia Institute of Technology
NIPCC’s CCR-II report should open the eyes of world leaders who have fallen prey to the scandalous climate dictates by the IPCC. People are already suffering the consequences of sub-prime financial instruments. Let them not suffer more from IPCC’s sub-prime climate science and models. That is the stark message of the NIPCC’s CCR-II report.
— M.I. Bhat, formerly professor and head Department of Geology and Geophysics University of Kashmir, India
Climate Change Reconsidered is a comprehensive, authoritative, and definitive reply to the IPCC reports.
— Dr. Gerrit van der Lingen Christchurch, New Zealand
Now I fully appreciate that anything backed the ‘The Heartland Institute’ sends the ‘manmade climate change’ brigade running in the other direction shouting ‘fossil-fuel backed charlatans’ but me, I read the bloody book. (It’s not a big one!).
Couldn’t find anything in it that gave me a problem.
Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus
This book and others can be found in here:
About the NIPCC ? Climate Change Reconsidered