Latest posts by Joe Bast (see all)
- Why Democrats Lose on Global Warming - December 1, 2017
- Flashback to 1993: A Common-Sense Plan for Health Care Reform - June 19, 2017
- Four Liberal U.S. Senators Attack Heartland, and We Reply - June 9, 2017
Heartland’s latest contribution to the global warming debate — Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report — has made an impression on Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament. He reviewed the book, which we reprint below:
Maybe it’s because of the huge success on the Amazon Best-Seller lists of popular books debunking climate hysteria that true believers insist that “there is no peer-reviewed science challenging the consensus on climate change”. Maybe these claims are also based on prejudice, hubris and a good dash of financial interest and rent-seeking.
Of course they’re wrong even in their own terms. Many of the popular best-sellers include copious and detailed references to peer-reviewed science. Even “State of Fear”, the Michael Crichton novel based on the climate issue, while avowedly fiction, foot-noted a great deal of serious science.
And as the old proverb has it, people in glass houses should be very careful about throwing stones. We’ve been told many times that the regular IPCC reports represent a clear consensus of the Scientific Community on the issue, and are based solely on peer-reviewed science. If only. As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, many of the more outlandish and alarmist claims in the IPCC reports have been based not on peer-reviewed science, but on “grey literature” — the propaganda sheets and press releases distributed by fanatical green NGOs (many of which are part-funded by the European Commission — but that’s another story).
But for those who prefer their science hard-core, not populist, hope is at hand. Indeed it’s been at hand for some time, in the form of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) Report. First published in 2009, we now have the updated 2011 Interim Report, published by the Heartland Institute (whose conferences I have been privileged to attend).
The report is authored by Fred Singer and Craig Idso (USA), and Robert (Bob) Carter of Australia — all of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. I have hosted Fred Singer in Brussels more than once. All three are acknowledged experts in their respective fields. Fred is a distinguished atmospheric physicist and environmental scientist. Bob Carter is a geologist specialises specializing in palaeontology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science.
Their report is not easy reading for non-scientists, though the executive summary is very accessible. Many will treat it as a highly authoritative source of reference. It is in particular a standing rebuke to all those alarmists who deny the existence of hard science supporting the sceptical case. And it makes considerable use of material quoted in the alarmist IPCC reports — some of which, properly interpreted, supports the case against the alarmist “consensus”.
The authors say “we are not saying that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot produce some warming, or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role”. And they add “the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife”.
Given the increasing realisation that climate mitigation efforts are creating an economic crisis, and increasing popular scepticism about the alarmist scenario, this is a timely publication, and a key resource for all of us who are arguing for common sense.