ewh,
Thank you for taking the time to accurately review your sources of information. This is an important step that is often overlooked, which leads to people being susceptible to believing misinformation. Unfortunately, climate science has become a politicized issue and it can be hard to separate ideology from scientific truth.
We here at the Eng-Tips forum, having no apparent formal training in climate science, are the perfect group to mark that divide. Furthermore, we also have keen insights into the issue that actual climate scientists, that have spent their life studying the science, do not. Having said that, let’s move onto the question at hand – is the NIPCC are trustworthy source?
NIPCC are the paragons of truth and reason. Don’t bother fact checking anything that they say because it is the objective truth. The blogs tell me so.
They never really publish papers in peer-reviewed journals but ask yourself why? Also, ask yourself why their conclusions always seem to counter the conclusions of the massive volumes of peer-reviewed research by actual climate scientist? Or why so few of their contributors are active, publishing scientists in the climate science field. Well it is because there is a world-wide conspiracy involving every top, most reputable scientific journal, scientific institution and university to block TRUE research from being published. This conspiracy also involves every major Head of State, from both the developed and developing world, and the UN. You see, the UN, through the IPCC, is, somehow, trying to create a one-world government that will secretly control the world and strip you of all your civil liberties. Now I know this might sound a little crazy and the fact that we don’t have any logical argument to back it up may be suspicious, but it’s true – NIPCC told us so.
Furthermore, you may be questioning the validity of the supposed “double peer reviewed” process they claim. Well because they cannot go through the normal peer-review process, due to the global conspiracy described above, they must do it themselves. Now, please ignore the fact that most of the people in the NIPCC are the
same people as in Heartland, CATO, GWPF, etc – so by “peer” they really mean “themselves”. This fact is irrelevant. The review process they used is very unbiased and non-ideologically driven. Also, ignore the fact that these institutions have
pretty much the same funders and same goals. This fact is irrelevant. These institutions are actually very diverse and very independent - some are right-wing, Koch funded think-tanks while others are tea party, Exxon funded think-tanks. Hence they can offer a very unbiased and non-ideologically driven review. What you will need to learn is the only relevant facts are those that come from NIPCC.
May I also suggest other unbiased, non-ideologically driven sources like CATO and GWPF. Blogs can be a good source of information but be careful – only read the ones that disagree with the anthropogenic climate change theory as the others are filled with unqualified liars.
Avoid untrustworthy sources like NASA, Joint National Academies of Science, Nature (the journal), Science (the journal) and pretty well every other scientific journal and university.
Best of luck navigating through the minefield that is the climate change debate.
Sincerely,
The Eng-Tips Climate Science Consensus
(ewh, please note this is aimed at making fun of others who eats this stuff up and was not aimed at you. My first and last points are sincere messages – I really respect you for trying to check the facts.
I think that the NIPCC Report is a bunch of trash. If you read in between the sarcasm above, you’ll find some reasons why. Others have posted links which dismantle their arguments. As to the specific “arguments” that they bring up, I have dealt with many of them in other threads. Here’s a
link to Grant Foster’s take on the report. The NIPCC report is really just full of awful, cherry picked arguments that breakdown the second you understand the issue in more depth.
Although my answers were sarcastic, my questions regarding why don’t they publish anything in peer-reviewed journals and why does everything they say fly in the face of all the other data, evidence and papers are sincere. If you pursue those answers, I trust that you’ll be lead to the same conclusion as I have – the NIPCC is junk science.
Peer-reviewed papers are the best source of information. NASA and NOAA publications are great as well. As for blogs, I recommend Real Climate (Gavin Schmidt) and Tamino (Grant Foster), both are published scientists in the field of climate science. I’d love to give you a recommendation for a good skeptic website but it’s becoming very difficult. A few years ago, I would have said try Judith Curry’s blog (climate, etc.) but the more I read her stuff, the more I think her arguments are biased and cherry picked. That’s the thing, the more I know about the science, the more I see the debate isn’t really one side versus the other – it’s the science vs a misunderstanding of the science.
All the best in your search and I greatly respect you opening these sources to criticism. I do apologize for my sarcastic response but I’ve become more and more jaded each time I have to explain why the “pause” is not a valid argument. I hope you can read between the lines and draw the proper message from it. Best wishes.)
![[ponder]](/data/assets/smilies/ponder.gif "[ponder] [ponder]")
![[cat]](/data/assets/smilies/cat.gif "[cat] [cat]")
