Friday, February 17, 2012

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Perhaps the finest example of the crazy-making Anthony Watts champions is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Anthony tells us we are supposed to trust a handful of scientists ~ while disregarding the efforts of tens of thousands of hardworking researchers.  

Ironically the 2011 Interim NIPCC Report's list of intrepid independent scientists consists of a total of three lead authors Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter and eight contributing authors Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar.

So while WUWT glibly demonizes thousands of mainstream scientists for their greedy grant money grubbing bias ~ we should remain blind to the fact that most of NIPCC scientists are on the Heartland payroll.  

Check it out: “The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012).”

As those Dana over at have pointed out: 
“Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors {who donate their time}is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. 

Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

RealClimate took a look at NIPCC’s alternate reality back in 2008, it’s worth a read:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SkepticalScience reports on the breaking story as do many other good sources.  To mention just a few:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Seems that lobbying has penetrated our non-profit think tanks as well.
When a few well paid individuals in a supposedly neutral organization (funded by special interest groups) actively seeks to change school curricula, in opposition to scientific community, one cannot help but wonder why? When does such an organization becomes a special interest group itself?