Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC; International Non Governmental Commission on Climate Change) is one of Fred Singer founded and largely virtual institution of organized climate deniers scene , as supposedly independent furnishing information about the IPCC of the United Nations common. The reports are not peer-reviewed and are published by the Heartland Institute , a partisan political organization that actively promotes the denial of climate change and its consequences.

aims

The aim of the organization is to counter the scientific findings of climate research with contradicting claims and thus to suggest to the public the appearance of noteworthy contradictions within science. This is intended to create the appearance not only of uncertainty about the research results, but rather of what appears to be a major scientific controversy surrounding global warming . This applies in particular to the central statements of climate research, namely that the earth is warming, that this is largely due to human activities and that this has negative consequences for global warming . In a budget plan for 2012 leaked to the press, the Heartland Institute notes: “We are currently sponsoring the NIPCC to undermine the official report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . We paid a team of authors $ 388,000 to work on a range of publications. "

The NIPCC was founded in 2004, but there were no significant activities until 2007. Through Singer, the NIPCC is closely tied to the neoconservative Heartland Institute , a think tank that is one of the central players in the organized climate change denial scene. In addition to the Heartland Institute, which is referred to as the center of the climate change denial movement supported by economic interests, the Science and Environmental Policy Project founded by Singer in 1990 was also involved in the establishment.

Hansson sees in the NIPCC and its reports, which imitate the reports of the IPCC, an "unusually clear example" of the procedure often used by pseudoscientists to found institutes, conferences, websites and sometimes even journals that have impressive scientific-sounding names but did not even meet basic scientific quality criteria. The aim of such activities is to create the impression that the scientific agreement with their theses is much greater than is actually the case.

Höttecke and Allchin openly call the reports "bogus science" (for example: sham science).

Authors

The NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science was written by 3 lead authors, 12 chapter authors and 38 other participants from various disciplines. Hardly any of the authors had a real academic background in meteorology or other climate-relevant fields. Instead, many authors worked for relevant think tanks such as the US Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change or the Australian Institute of Public Affairs .

theses

The NIPCC report claims that it is presenting scientific findings that contradict most, if not all, of the IPCC findings. In a publication by the NIPCC in 2009, z. B. claims that the authors of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC made serious mistakes in the preparation. Among other things, the following statements can be found there:

  1. The current climate models are not able to reliably predict the effects of an increasing CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere.
  2. In the calculated effects of an increasing CO 2 concentration, feedback effects would not be taken into account.
  3. Real weather data did not confirm the IPCC thesis that there is a so-called climate trend .
  4. Advantages that an increasing CO 2 share could bring (e.g. for forestry and agriculture ) would not be taken into account in the IPCC report.
  5. There is no evidence that a rise in global temperature caused by CO 2 could lead to the extinction of plants and animals.
  6. Evidence of the responsibility of increased CO 2 values ​​for an increased number of illnesses and deaths due to extreme climatic conditions is also missing.

A comparative word analysis of the fifth IPCC report from 2013 on the one hand and the NIPCC report from the same year on the other hand showed that emotional words were used significantly more frequently in the NIPCC report, but less cautious and restrictive ones. Overall, the NIPCC report was formulated less formally than its scientific counterpart. The authors concluded that - contrary to the allegations of climate skeptics - the IPCC report was worded rather cautiously. The authors of the analysis saw the discrepancy as an indication that the NIPCC report could serve less to present evidence than to discredit the IPCC report.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Dietmar Höttecke, Douglas Allchin: Reconceptualizing nature ‐ of ‐ science education in the age of social media . In: Science Education . tape 104 , no. 4 , 2020, p. 641-666 , doi : 10.1002 / sce.21575 .
  2. ^ Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press 2015, 300-332, p. 308.
  3. ↑ Anita Blasberg , Kerstin Kohlenberg : Die Klimakrieger . In: Die Zeit , No. 48/2012, p. 17 ff.
  4. ^ Foreword to S. Fred Singer: Nature, not human activity, determines the climate , tvrgroup.de, accessed on February 10, 2011
  5. ^ Riley E. Dunlap and Peter J. Jacques: Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 699-731 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477096 .
  6. ↑ a b c Dieter Plehwe: Think tank networks and the knowledge interest nexus: The case of climate change . In: Critical Policy Studies . tape 8 , no. 1 , 2014, p. 101–115, especially 108 , doi : 10.1080 / 19460171.2014.883859 .
  7. ^ Sven Ove Hansson: Dealing with climate science denialism: experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience . In: Climate Policy . tape 18 , no. 9 , 2018, p. 1094–1102 , doi : 10.1080 / 14693062.2017.1415197 .
  8. ↑ Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2009. ( Memento of the original from December 14, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info : The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 8 MB) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.nipccreport.org
  9. ↑ Srdan Medimorec, Gordon Penny Cook: The language of denial: text analysis Reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics . In: Climatic Change . tape 133 , no. 4 , 2015, p. 597-605 , doi : 10.1007 / s10584-015-1475-2 .