so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.
the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.
The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:
On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.
In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).
Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. 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). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.
Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.
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 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.
The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:
The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.
The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:
Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):
In addition to being long-debunked myths, several of these arguments contradict each other. For example, arguing that the planet isn't warming, but it's warming because of the sun, and it's warming because of natural cycles, and warming is good anyway. The report also argues that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was warmer than today; however, if the planet is sensitive to the factors which caused the MWP, then it's also sensitive to greenhouse gas changes, which contradicts the "climate sensitivity is low" argument.
The NIPCC is not valid science, or anything resembling it:
To sum up, IPCC mainstream climate science is about taking an accurate, comprehensive view of the entire body of climate science evidence[..]
Rather than taking this sort of broad overall view of the scientific evidence, the Heartland Institute pays its scientists to disregard most climate science research and focus exclusively on the few "skeptic" studies which support their very narrow focus on poking holes in the IPCC report.
The difference between the two groups could not be more clear.
Courtesy of http://www.skepticalscience.co...
