A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

[LeafByNiggle]

Strawman argument, I explicitly said the peer-reviewed study stated that the “reports” are scientifically comparable.

But since the trustworthiness of the reports depends on the trustworthiness of the organizations, you cannot have trust in the report if you don’t have trust in the organization.

“Trust” however is purely subjective and has nothing to do with either organization’s scientific arguments.

But trust does have something to do with whether I would be inclined to believe their arguments.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the NIPCC reports exist and are extensively cited and sourced.

Not nearly as extensively as the IPCC, I’ll bet. I still think their choice of name is suspicious. You can’t convince me it was purely a coincidence that NIPCC includes IPCC.

The fact that you have just now heard of them means you never once questioned any of the IPCC’s conclusions.

No, it means the NIPCC is just not that prominent in the literature.

 

[dvdjs]

“Analysing the difference between the reference lists, we concluded that scientific arguments were constructed from the similar material; references came mainly from the same journals and the same journals were among those most cited by both sides. …] More broadly, we should consider that both reports purport to be based on the ideal of pure, value-free science,”

Same materials, strongly divergent conclusions. At least one is wrong.
I like the word “purport”. Did this peer-reviewed study delve into the reality of the claim?

 

[frobert]

The NIPCC reports are no more an opinion paper than the IPCC reports.

Any intellectually honest scientist would be interested in a comprehensive scientific review of the scholarly literature that points to greater uncertainty and a smaller role for man-made greenhouse gases than the IPCC claims.

You cannot just hand wave away comprehensive scientific reports that run over 2000 pages and have more than 4000 scholarly references.

NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (PDF) (993 pgs)
NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (PDF) (1062 pgs)

As I said 2 volumes over a 1000 pages is impressive. Unfortunately impressive is not science and climate scientists have almost universally ignored the paper. Read through the 1000+ pages match the references to determine if the inferences made are correct and get back to us.I am afraid you won’t have any climate scientist to help you.

 

[frobert]

The issue is how the media has used it.

If the media is where you get your science, what more is there to say.

 

[Poptech]

But since the trustworthiness of the reports depends on the trustworthiness of the organizations, you cannot have trust in the report if you don’t have trust in the organization.

But trust does have something to do with whether I would be inclined to believe their arguments.

“Trust” is purely subjective and like I said in the other discussion I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything as I do not believe it is possible.

Not nearly as extensively as the IPCC, I’ll bet. I still think their choice of name is suspicious. You can’t convince me it was purely a coincidence that NIPCC includes IPCC.

The point of the NIPCC report is to cover the science the IPCC ignores. Now considering the NIPCC reports have over 4000 peer-reviewed references and only 262 are identical to the IPCC it is quite clear the IPCC is ignoring a huge volume of the scientific literature.

Obviously the NIPCC chose its name in relation to the IPCC, they make this quite clear.

“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.”

No, it means the NIPCC is just not that prominent in the literature.

Again,

The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:

The NIPCC reports have been cited in the scholarly literature over 120 times.

While a proper Google Scholar search shows that it has been cited and referenced in the scholarly literature hundreds of times.

 

[Poptech]

As I said 2 volumes over a 1000 pages is impressive. Unfortunately impressive is not science and climate scientists have almost universally ignored the paper. Read through the 1000+ pages match the references to determine if the inferences made are correct and get back to us.I am afraid you won’t have any climate scientist to help you.

Climate scientists help write the NIPCC reports. I have already read much of the reports and they are all fully cited and sourced. No matter how hard you want to deny their validity you cannot hand wave them away.

 

[Poptech]

Same materials, strongly divergent conclusions. At least one is wrong.
I like the word “purport”. Did this peer-reviewed study delve into the reality of the claim?

Same journals, similar material. The NIPCC reports have over 4000 peer-reviewed references and only 262 are identical to the IPCC.

 

[frobert]

This is incorrect, the purpose of the reports are to “present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming.”

I gave an opinion backed up by the actual facts that the scientific community ignored the paper. What more is there to say.

The reports have been extensively featured in the media and referenced in their editorials.

The references appeared on an opinion page rightly labled “Opinion Pieces”

The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:

The NIPCC reports have been cited in the scholarly literature over 120 times.

While a proper Google Scholar search shows that it has been cited and referenced in the scholarly literature hundreds of times.

Your search included all the NIPCC opinion papers.

Fact: [CITATION] Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming
C Isdo, R Carter, F Singer - The Heartland Institute. Non Profit Research …, 2015
Cited by 3 Related articles

 

[frobert]

Climate scientists help write the NIPCC reports. I have already read much of the reports and they are all fully cited and sourced. No matter how hard you want to deny their validity you cannot hand wave them away.

Thank you for your subjective opinion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

“Trust” is purely subjective and like I said in the other discussion.

…and yet trust is absolutely essential here, subjective or not.

The point of the NIPCC report is to cover the science the IPCC ignores.

Now considering the NIPCC reports have over 4000 peer-reviewed references and only 262 are identical to the IPCC it is quite clear the IPCC is ignoring a huge volume of the scientific literature.

This means nothing. Unless it is previously established that those “ignored” references are relevant, there is no grounds for criticizing the IPCC for ignoring them.

Obviously the NIPCC chose its name in relation to the IPCC.

Exactly my point. Their importance is entirely dependent on the existence of the IPCC. If there were no IPCC there would be no NIPCC. They exist solely to refute the IPCC. Since there very existence is predicated on a mission to refute the IPCC, it is not surprising that they find in favor of contrary views.

]The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:

This “survey” of references to NIPCC to show its popularity is more flawed than the Cook survey to show the popularity of AGW.

 

[frobert]

I just provided a peer-reviewed study explicitly stating that the reports are comparable.

Here is the difference.

IPCC

[BOOK] Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate …
RK Pachauri, MR Allen, VR Barros, J Broome… - 2014 - epic.awi.de
The Synthesis Report (SYR), constituting the final product of the Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is published under the title
Climate Change 2014. This report distils, synthesizes and integrates the key findings of the
Cited by 2521 Related articles

NIPCC

Climate change reconsidered
C Idso, SF Singer - 2009 Report of the, 2009 - joannenova.com.au
A new 880-page account of climate change science, similar in scope to the science volume
of IPCC’s 4 th Assessment Report, has just been released. The Report includes summary
discussion of relevant and recent scientific publications. NIPCC has been written by an
Cited by 31 Related articles

[CITATION] Climate change reconsidered: 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
CD Idso, SF Singer - 2009 - … International Panel on Climate …
Cited by 100 Related articles

[CITATION] Climate Change Reconsidered
PJ Palutikof, CE Hanson - Climate Change Reconsidered - Citeseer
Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save
[CITATION] Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report
]CD Idso, RM Carter, SF Singer, S Crockford… - 2011 - … International Panel on Climate …
Cited by 18 Related articles

[CITATION] Climate change reconsidered II
CD Idso, RM Carter, SF Singer - 2013 - agris.fao.org
Related information in other data sources. Climate change reconsidered II. Climate change
reconsidered II [2013]. Idso, Craig D. (Craig Douglas) Carter, RM (Robert Merlin) 1942- Singer,
S. Fred (Siegfried Fred) 1924- Heartland Institute (Chicago, Ill.) Nongovernmental International
Cited by 16 Related articles

Total Citations 165 for NIPCC reports
​

In science citations are an objective measure of merit.

 

[dvdjs]

Climate scientists help write the NIPCC reports. I have already read much of the reports and they are all fully cited and sourced. No matter how hard you want to deny their validity you cannot hand wave them away.

You do realize that it is possible to have a great bibliography and still write nonsense, dont you?

 

[dvdjs]

Here is the difference.

IPCC

[BOOK] Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate …
RK Pachauri, MR Allen, VR Barros, J Broome… - 2014 - epic.awi.de
The Synthesis Report (SYR), constituting the final product of the Fifth Assessment Report
(AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is published under the title
Climate Change 2014. This report distils, synthesizes and integrates the key findings of the
Cited by 2521 Related articles

NIPCC

Climate change reconsidered
C Idso, SF Singer - 2009 Report of the, 2009 - joannenova.com.au
A new 880-page account of climate change science, similar in scope to the science volume
of IPCC’s 4 th Assessment Report, has just been released. The Report includes summary
discussion of relevant and recent scientific publications. NIPCC has been written by an
Cited by 31 Related articles

[CITATION] Climate change reconsidered: 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
CD Idso, SF Singer - 2009 - … International Panel on Climate …
Cited by 100 Related articles

[CITATION] Climate Change Reconsidered
PJ Palutikof, CE Hanson - Climate Change Reconsidered - Citeseer
Related articles All 2 versions Cite Save
[CITATION] Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report
]CD Idso, RM Carter, SF Singer, S Crockford… - 2011 - … International Panel on Climate …
Cited by 18 Related articles

[CITATION] Climate change reconsidered II
CD Idso, RM Carter, SF Singer - 2013 - agris.fao.org
Related information in other data sources. Climate change reconsidered II. Climate change
reconsidered II [2013]. Idso, Craig D. (Craig Douglas) Carter, RM (Robert Merlin) 1942- Singer,
S. Fred (Siegfried Fred) 1924- Heartland Institute (Chicago, Ill.) Nongovernmental International
Cited by 16 Related articles

Total Citations 165 for NIPCC reports
​

In science citations are an objective measure of merit.

Thanks so much for doing this work.
so the IPCC and Not-IPCC reports do not seem the least bit comparable in impact; Not-IPCC is not getting much traction.

 

[friardchips]

You are right. It took scientists over 30 years to determine in 1995 that global warming was happening. They had had the theory for nearly 200 years, which explained the natural greenhouse effect, helping to explain past warmings and ice ages. They knew increasing greenhouse gases cause the climate to warm, they knew we were increasing the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere thru our industrial emissions, but it still took them until 1995 to achieve 95% confidence the climate was warming, and since then the evidence has become much stronger. So, yes it takes time. But no, we should not rely on a layperson’s impression of his home area and whether or not is has warmed or cooled there, since we are referring to increased in global average temps.

They also said that there was a hole in the ozone layer which turned out to be false.

We’ve also had major ice ages - who was to blame then? The icebergs? Penguins? Pre-historic dino-guins? What were these wing-ed birds up to?! Because, there weren’t any humans to blame! But then, the climate of the earth got hotter, afterwards - so what happened to make it hotter? Was it because cavemen had solar-powered hair-dryers that were causing global temperatures to soar skyward. Anything is possible.

You say that the problem is “global”. However, a lot of the earth is the Antarctic, and other such areas that are rather hard to measure temperature-wise, over time. And certainly, two-hundred years ago, people who tried to reach such areas - on the globe - died, when trying to do so. I think such explorers were more concerned about the fact that they were freezing to death rather than worrying about whether so far along in history a certain politician with a lot of power would go to great extents to doom-say half of the world’s population into giving him a huge amount of money.

I have read a book about the whole ‘climate change’ fad, which has outlasted its sell-by-date - the fad, not the book. It’s full of useful information, called FACTS. And it also points out useful information concerning those FACTS, which point to the ‘Climate Change’ agenda being nothing more than on-the-surface brain-washing.

And before that, when JPII wrote in 1990 that it is a serious problem and we should mitigate it, it was generally referred to as the “greenhouse effect.” Each term helps describe it, so pick whichever one you prefer.

It is within the jurisdiction of Popes to speak infallibly concerning Scripture, faith and morals - Genesis speaks of us being masters over the earth, and so, kind of protectors - but no Pope can tell us what to believe, politically. They cannot speak infallibly over something that is not infallible. So, with respect to the Popes, I respectfully disagree with the political Climate Change, agenda. However, if they had read what I had read, I am sure they would respectfully agree - with me.

Scientists only get their salaries. They do not even get paid for contributing to scholarly works like the IPCC, but do it as their duty. And what do the get in return, hatred, harassment, death threat, hostility, and slander from the GW skeptics.

That is rather off the mark. These people are paid. And not only a little bit of money. It is a very lucrative industry, making people believe in something that is not really there.

Do you think JPII, BXVI and Pope Francis are scamming us. I guess we all have a right to our opinion, but not the facts, and the fact is global warming is happening, it is mostly caused by people, and it has serious risks and threats of harms to people and others of God’s creation for years, centuries, and millennia to come.

The earth is in God’s hands. That is good enough knowledge for me. As long as we are responsible for the earth and make sure we put pressure on companies to behave environmentally efficiently, then there is nothing more we can do. The rest is doom-saying. And we are told not to worry about times and seasons (it’s in Scripture).

You don’t have to turn off lights not in use & the many other things we can do to mitigate this problem – there are no laws to make you do so – but if you want to err on the side of prudence and caution and are concerned about future generations and the poor, then it might be wise to do what you can to become more energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible. The ball’s in your court and in the courts of all others in the world. It is up to you and others.

This has nothing to do with agenda-based political machinations.

People have been looking after the environment before the IPCC came along.

The deep sigh of relief I breath is that there are scientists who don’t just fall in with the IPCC who do actually speak using logical facts and not superficial data (even though they get slated for it). IOW, that there are other scientists, other than the ones roped into this little nest-egg.

The IPCC change their statistics more often than I circulate what I have for dinner during the week.

Also, the only images I have been presented with, when the IPCC is placed before me, are images that have evidently been photo-shopped. I know the difference between real images that have not been worked on and ones that have been PSed.

Vivaldi enjoyed the Seasons and so do I! And will continue to do so!

 

[friardchips]

…if one really wishes to help save life, then pray.

 

[Poptech]

I gave an opinion backed up by the actual facts that the scientific community ignored the paper. What more is there to say.

This is incorrect,

The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:

The NIPCC reports have been cited in the scholarly literature over 120 times

The references appeared on an opinion page rightly labled “Opinion Pieces”

What do you think an editorial is? The media is not the scientific community.

Your search included all the NIPCC opinion papers.

Fact: [CITATION]Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming
C Isdo, R Carter, F Singer - The Heartland Institute. Non Profit Research …, 2015
Cited by 3 Related articles

I take it you are new to using Google Scholar.

This is incorrect, it is not an “opinion paper” but a scholarly work that is fully cited and sourced.

 

[Poptech]

…and yet trust is absolutely essential here, subjective or not.

As I previously state, you will never “trust” anything I post so this conversation is meaningless.

This means nothing. Unless it is previously established that those “ignored” references are relevant, there is no grounds for criticizing the IPCC for ignoring them.

They are very relevant which is the entire purpose of the NIPCC reports.

 

[Poptech]

Here is the difference.

There is no question the IPCC reports are more well known than the NIPCC reports but so is Justin Beiber. The NIPCC reports exist and you cannot simply hand wave them away because you wish they did not.

In science citations are an objective measure of merit.

Incorrect, citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Whether something has “merit” is purely subjective.

 

[dvdjs]

There is no question the IPCC reports are more well known than the NIPCC reports but so is Justin Beiber. The NIPCC reports exist and you cannot simply hand wave them away because you wish they did not.

Incorrect, citations are a determination of popularity not scientific validity. Whether something has “merit” is purely subjective.

If Justin Beiber’s work was being cited in scientific articles your comparison would not be risible. But he isn’t; so it is.

It is true that care must be taken in compari\ing citation numbers. Some fields are hot some are not. But here ware comparing two papers of the same type in the same discipline. One has a boatload of citations - and let me assure you that ~2500 is a boatload. The other, not so much. This comparison is a good indication of a scientific consensus behind the IPCC report.

 

[Poptech]

If Justin Beiber’s work was being cited in scientific articles your comparison would not be risible. But he isn’t; so it is.

It is true that care must be taken in compari\ing citation numbers. Some fields are hot some are not. But here ware comparing two papers of the same type in the same discipline. One has a boatload of citations - and let me assure you that ~2500 is a boatload. The other, not so much. This comparison is a good indication of a scientific consensus behind the IPCC report.

That is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of scientists worldwide and not evidence of any such consensus.

Al Gore’s book has been cited 1675 times.

The infamous retracted paper linking vaccines to autism (Wakefield et al. 1998) was cited 2569 times.