Well the plot thickens.

You know how we are constantly told we can’t trust them thousands of grant-money grubbing “consensus” scientists.  Well take a peek at real money grubbing scientists that make up the NIPCC… actually not some of them, all of them.

The 2011 Interim NIPCC Report’s list of intrepid independent scientists consisted of three lead authors Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter, with all of eight contributing authors Susan Crockford, Joe D’Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar.

HeartlandGate, or the sexier sounding DenialGate, has revealed Heartland’s contribution:

“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 Dana over at SkepticalScience.com 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.”

Their story is worth a read:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html

As for the “science’ they do, RealClimate gave that a review a few years back:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

Obviously Dana has not read much regarding goals of the IPCC itself, it’s chairpersons, its lead authors, and so on.

FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 06:56 AM

Obviously Dana has not read much regarding goals of the IPCC itself, it’s chairpersons, its lead authors, and so on.

What’s that mean?

What’s wrong with the IPCC’s stated goals?

citizenschallenge.pm - 07 March 2012 08:09 AM

FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 06:56 AM

Obviously Dana has not read much regarding goals of the IPCC itself, it’s chairpersons, its lead authors, and so on.

What’s that mean?

What’s wrong with the IPCC’s stated goals?

I did not say there was something wrong with it’s goals.

Let’s start with conflict of interest. IPCC was told to clean up in that regard. The suggestion was rebuffed till sometime later,  by Chairperson Pachauri,  as not fair to those already conflicted parties.

FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 08:18 AM

citizenschallenge.pm - 07 March 2012 08:09 AM

FrenchCurve - 05 March 2012 06:56 AM

Obviously Dana has not read much regarding goals of the IPCC itself, it’s chairpersons, its lead authors, and so on.

What’s that mean?

What’s wrong with the IPCC’s stated goals?

I did not say there was something wrong with it’s goals.

Let’s start with conflict of interest. IPCC was told to clean up in that regard. The suggestion was rebuffed till sometime later,  by Chairperson Pachauri,  as not fair to those already conflicted parties.

Why not start with the science that the IPCC has collected?
Why not express an interest for the dynamics within our climate/weather?

Why all of these incidental overblown and usually misrepresented sideshows?

What about the main show of society’s vast impact and the important job of developing an appreciating for it’s geologic… and real time, significants?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Besides your Pachauri slander is more smoke and mirrors than serious flaws on his part.