Monday, April 21, 2014

Update on NIPCC

So, I've been reading the reports posted by NIPCC and it has been very interesting. Not because I have seen anything worth reading, but because of the massive amount of writing they put out there. Unfortunately, from what I can tell so far, none of it is scientifically valid and you don't have to go far to find out why. Check this list of Lead Authors/Editors from their latest report on Biological Impacts:

Idso, Craig D.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Idso, Sherwood B.
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Carter, Robert M.
Emeritus Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs

Singer, S. Fred
Science and Environmental Policy Project

If you are at all familiar with the climate wars you will recognize at least two of those names. Craig Idso and Fred Singer are two of the most notorious climate change deniers and are funded by The Heartland Institute. To be thorough, let me say that The Heartland Institute is the same group of people that promoted that cigarette smoking was harmless and CFCs are harmless to the environment. Today, they are promoting the idea that second-hand smoke is harmless.

Sherwood Idso is Craig Idso's father and the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a well-known climate change denier organization. Robert Carter rounds it out. He is also a well-known climate change misinformer.

When you look at the credentials and track-history of the people in charge of the report you really know everything needed about the report itself. This is a group of people who are professional climate change deniers and it is well documented that each of them has engaged in disinformation on the topic.

I will comment on some of the specifics of their report, but they have cranked out thousands of pages and it is not possible for me to spend the time needed to debunk it all. Which, of course, is their objective. But, I will do what I can.


  1. We await your comment on some of the specifics of the NIPCC report ( ). But I will respectfully suggest that since you make the assertion here that the authors are professional climate change deniers, it would be incumbent on you to first and foremost clearly lay out the proof you have that they deny climate change in the broader sense of the phrase, while also providing all your readers with physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) that skeptic scientists were paid industry-sourced money to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints.

    And, please, spare us the predictable and oft-repeated suggestions to read entire books or websites, or to view hours-long video presentations. I've already done so, you should see the quantity of sticky notes and written comments within my copies of Hoggan's, Gelbspan's, etc, books ( ). I know full well the chore of slogging through presentations by Desmogblog's John Mashey or Naomi Oreskes, stopping & starting 'em while transcribing their key accusations. Surely the readers agreeing with your viewpoints would love to have as direct of links or references as possible, it would save them the time of rummaging through all that material when they themselves are challenged to produce proof that skeptics are paid to lie.

  2. Very Interesting comment. It sounds like an attempt to intimidate me. Maybe even a veiled threat? I linked each the individuals mentioned above to websites supporting my statements. That said, I will, in the process of reviewing the NIPCC drivel, provide amplifying documentation.

  3. Perhaps a different perspective on my above comment is needed. Imagine encountering a person claiming he's seen a living bird that's been on the extinct list since the last sighting of it in the 1890s. You might ask the person how he proves he saw it. Although he might be able to point to the bird in an illustrated book, it is not proof that this particular bird population still lives. You'd want verifiable photographic proof at the very least. And to avoid being perceived as a person who did not actually see such a bird, this person would most likely want to get that proof, and it would make you wonder if his reply was that you were trying to intimidate or threaten him.

    No different in my comment above. We routinely hear skeptics being called "deniers" in general, or 'deniers' of the smoking / lung cancer connection, or that they are paid shills lying for 'big coal & oil' companies. But, no proof accompanies the accusations no matter where you find them, which should strike you as an odd situation. No need to trust me on this, look into it for yourself. Rather than view this in a negative manner, I would have thought you'd embrace this as a positive challenge that would not only enlighten you to a facet of the issue you probably have not looked into in much depth, but it would also provide you with valuable information you could pass on to others …… if it happens that I'm spectacularly wrong about the lack of evidence to proving the three points above.

  4. Start out with this one on Craig Idso.

    Craig Idso is currently the head of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group dedicated to attacking the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In February of 2012, internal documents detailing budgets and strategies from the Heartland Institute were released to DeSmogBlog. These documents indicated that Heartland pays Craig Idso $11,600 per month for his work attacking legitimate climate science. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration. He is the son of the Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change's President Sherwood Idso and brother of VP Keith.

    Source: ExxonSecrets Fact Sheet: Craig Idso

    The very fact that Craig Idso is associated with the NIPCC proves everything I said about him. NIPCC is funded by the fossil fuel industry and has climate change denial and deception as its goal.

    Don't worry about intimidating me. It would take a lot more than you.

  5. Is that the best you can do? If you had to answer a court subpoena as a defense witness supporting people accused of committing libel/slander against skeptic climate scientists, is that material from ExxonSecrets all you'd have to bring with you?

    With all due respect, you've done little more than point to the "extinct bird illustrations" book I mentioned in my prior comment. Notice how ExxonSecrets neither shows you the so-called "internal documents detailing budgets and strategies" in any fashion (direct scan links or to Desmogblog's links), nor does it or Desmogblog ever show you irrefutable proof of a directive specifically ordering Dr Idso to knowingly use false science papers to 'attack legitimate climate science'.

    I'll provide the link to the exact "$11,600 document" for you, but in a version with yellow highlighting over it: It is the memo that Heartland says is a forgery, where Joe Bast goes over it point-by-point here , and in regard to the monetary figure, Bast says this: "Fifth paragraph: The paragraph purports to describe our “Funding for selected individuals outside of Heartland.” It is all the forger’s own words, but the names of three scientists (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and the amounts they are allegedly paid per month were taken from the 2012 Budget, Table 3 on page 7. We do not fund Idso, Singer, or Carter to “regularly and publicly counter the alarmist AGW message.” They (or more accurately, in two of the three cases, their organizations) are paid to write and edit the multi-volume NIPCC report, described in the previous paragraph. This results in another error: The forger double reports spending that was described in the previous paragraph."

    Anyone can find the source of ExxonSecrets / Desmog's "evidence" with focused effort, but when peole do so, they do not find nice tidy answers bolstering the accusation, they instead encounter a situation in which ExxonSecrets might have been better advised to write that particular statement in more of a full disclosure manner, like this: "One particular document indicated that Heartland pays Craig Idso $11,600 per month for his work attacking legitimate climate science, a memo which Heartland contends is an outright forgery, and that this particular funding claim is a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the situation."

    So, would you care to try again, going straight to the physical evidence proving a quid pro quo arrangement exists between skeptic climate scientists and industry officials? Just askin'. Perhaps any intimidation you may actually feel is self-inflicted, brought on by a basic fear that you cannot deliver when it comes to backing up your claim that "NIPCC is funded by the fossil fuel industry and has climate change denial and deception as its goal." Not only would the funding be an item that could specifically be quantified as to amounts and sources, but so could the actual directive(s) to spread misinformation, along with outright statements from the scientists where they actually repeatedly say that global warming has not happened over the last 100-150 or so years. So let's see your evidence of that.

  6. So, you're threatening me with a lawsuit? That would certainly be in line with the Heartland Institute. Try to shut down anything that goes against what you want the public to hear. The people on the science side will show how the deniers are not credible, but I am not aware of threats, intimidation or lawsuits trying to shut down skeptics. That is your style.

  7. Any claim that anything or anyone associated the the Heartland Institute is not about undermining the science of climate change is laughable, at best. The track record speaks for itself. Claims by Joe Bast that the documents are forged are simply not credible, but they clearly serve the purpose of deniers by claiming the embarrassing facts are not true.

    Of course, in the event that I was required to answer any subpoenas the clear answer would be to subpoena the necessary financials of the individuals and organizations involved.

  8. "So, you're threatening me with a lawsuit?…."

    I respectfully suggest you show your verbatim blog post and our comments to the most disinterested person you can find and ask him or her - without any leading pointers on your part - whether my first bit about the wisdom of you supporting your accusation with proof is threatening or intimidation, and whether my prior comment is any indication at all of a pending lawsuit against you. If they say "No" and then look at you sorta funny, that might be an indication that you might want to more carefully re-read my comments.

    Nowhere in any of my writings will you find me advocating the shut-down / silencing of the AGW side. What you will instead find is me citing BOTH sides, openly linking to Desmogblog, ExxonSecrets, RealClimate, and Gore's movie along with the "Chasing Ice" one, and inviting astute readers to compare them all with skeptic info and decide for themselves. You may not be honestly aware of 'threats, intimidation or lawsuits trying to shut down skeptics', but I will respectfully suggest you have not looked for them. As in the 1010global video ( - direct link, note, graphic disturbing material) suggesting what might be in store for skeptics if they do not comply; as in Michael Mann's lawsuit against Mark Steyn ( ) and Tim Ball ( ); as in the 'stab skeptics with icicles' bit ( ); the ClimateGate email where Ben Santer wishes to do harm to Pat Michaels ( ); a Greenpeace person making less than veiled threats ( ); etc, etc. With all due respect, I could keep right on going. It is the collective side of AGW what wants to shut out skeptics, marginalizing them in the eyes of the public largely through endless efforts of character assassination. E.g. calling them paid industry shills.

    In cased you missed the overall point, you are certainly free to assert whatever you wish about Heartland, Joe Bast's / Desmog / ExxonSecrets claims, but when you fail to back up those assertions with evidence, folks will not look to you as anything more than a source of worn-out unsupportable talking points they've probably already heard. And in case you missed my point about guilt-by-association material, by all means, do subpoena the necessary financials of the individuals and organizations involved - including those of Greenpeace. But fail to also bring in evidence that the money directly purchases lies and misinformation, and you end up staring squarely in the face of the jury not buying anything you have to say about the guilt of skeptics. If it is revealed that enviro-activist groups used their mega-funding to manufacture doubt about the credibility of skeptics, then we have a much larger problem.

    So, don't worry if you can't back up your most basic accusation, I didn't really have any expectation that you could, since it is no more than a consistent pattern across the board all the way up to Al Gore. You would have been the first to provide such evidence, had you succeeded. I'm glad you allow my comments here, others sometimes start doing that, but then never allow the rest of them. The ol' "shut down anything that goes against what you want the public to hear" ploy. The guys at SkepticScience are adept at that: