On Tuesday, an international panel of scientists and scholars released a report contradicting the findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), often considered the authority on the matter. The panel, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC reportedly ignores and found “no empirical evidence . . . to substantiate the claim that 2 [degrees Celsius] of warming presents a threat to planetary ecologies or environments,” one finding of the IPCC’s work. They also found no evidence that “a warming will be more economically costly than an equivalent cooling,” another tenet of the IPCC.
The NIPCC was founded “to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming” and to provide a counterweight to the U.N.’s IPCC. “Because it’s 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 . . . IPCC,” their website says.
The organization argues:
The high regard that the IPCC claims for itself is undeserved. Numerous writers have documented the strong bias of its founders and principals, its determination to find a human role in climate change almost without regard to what the data show, and the corrupting role that politics has played in the organization’s history. And yet, every new article, book, or presentation made by a skeptical scientist or economist, no matter how distinguished, is met with the nearly rote response that “the consensus of scientists” as represented by the IPCC had already settled the issue, and “the scientific debate is over.”
The authors of the NIPCC’s latest report, Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer, call their work, which rejects the IPCC’s methodology, “comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method.” They found that “if the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double ,” as is projected, “[the] warming [that] may occur would likely be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.” A 2-degree Celsius increase in temperature, even if it did happen, they argue, would still “fall within the bounds of natural variability.”
The findings of the NIPCC’s report are “stated plainly and repeated in thousands of articles in the peer-reviewed literature,” the authors say. In fact, they suggest, “forward projections for solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions.”