Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report On The Nongovernmental Panel On Climate Change


Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report On The Nongovernmental Panel On Climate Change

(5 customer reviews)
5.00 out of 5 based on 5 customer ratings


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under severe criticism for violating the requirements of academic peer review and relying on secondary sources, comes under attack again in a new book co-produced by three nonprofit research organizations. According to Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, natural causes are very likely to be [the] dominant cause of climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries. We are not saying anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot produce some warming or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role. The authors of the new report Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer go on to say the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.

Additional information

Weight 2.4 lbs
Dimensions 10.9 × 8.5 × 1.1 in

The Heartland Institute


415 pages



Publication Date

September 1, 2011

5 reviews for Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report On The Nongovernmental Panel On Climate Change

  1. Tom Harris

    From the perspective of the International Climate Science Coalition, this book, “Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” is worth far more than its weight in gold.

    The value of this document is that it really has two parts – one, a brief “Introduction” at the beginning of each chapter that anyone, even people untrained in the field, can quickly read to understand, in general terms, where official climate science is off base. The second part of each chapter goes through the evidence for each introduction.

    No one anywhere in the world has ever produced a document of this nature that is so easy to read, directly applicable to today’s most discussed topics, and yet so extensively referenced.

    While it is worthwhile to read the whole report, of course, reporters and government officials need to at least read the introductions to get a handle on what the UN IPCC has done wrong or misrepresents.

    History will record the NIPCC as the most significant contribution any person or group on the climate realist side of the debate made to helping society get back on track towards making climate and energy decisions that actually help the environment and society.

    Congrats to Heartland and their lead science editors as follows for this massive and important work:

    Craig D. Idso, PhD; Professor Robert Carter, PhD and Professor S. Fred Singer, PhD.

    I boost this document whenever I speak or appear in media and always direct people to the site […]. There is nothing like it anywhere else.

    Tom Harris
    International Climate Science Coalition

  2. MJM

    Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report is a thorough scientific review of the literature on climate science. Conclusions are drawn from all of the available data and studies by using sound reasoning and unbiased analysis. Read this book if you are serious about understanding the way the world exists on climate change. Read the IPCC interim reports if you have a political agenda.

  3. Professor Smith

    The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists over whether man’s use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism. The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in this book, Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009. This careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for climate patterns of the last century. Heartland has just published a follow up 416 page Interim Report updating the debate.

    When you run across a Knight Templar threatening you with a lance and a sword unless you confess the truth of catastrophic man caused global warming, ask him for his rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered. You will find the effect is like showing a cross to a vampire. Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false.

  4. Paul Driessen

    The 2011 edition of Climate Change Reconsidered is a quite extraordinary achievement. It should put to rest once and for all any notion that “the science is settled” on the subject of global warming, or that humanity and our planet face an imminent manmade climate change disaster.

    Prepared by eleven highly accomplished US, Canadian and Australian climate researchers and scholars, this 430-page report is not just extensively researched and footnoted. It covers every important aspect of climate change, climate research, and the positive and negative effects of energy use, carbon dioxide, and global warming and cooling – on plant and animal species, and human lives and livelihoods.

    Equally important, the introductory overviews to each of the ten chapters are easy to read and comprehend, even for people who don’t have extensive backgrounds in science, economics, statistics or public policy – meaning most of the population. The overviews cover all the most vital issues addressed in each chapter, and do so in a way that makes Climate Change Reconsidered especially valuable for legislators, regulators, journalists, corporate executives, judges, educators and other people who need to know and understand issues that are being used to justify major changes in the energy, economic, agricultural, corporate, legal and social structures of every nation.

    Three vitally important conclusions are inevitable from reading this report. First, our knowledge of climate change, its causes and effects is in its infancy. We cannot afford to base fundamental energy and other public policy decisions on elementary knowledge, computer models and assertions by a UN-sponsored panel of experts that have been roundly and properly criticized for violating nearly every canon of scientific analysis, integrity, transparency and accountability.

    Second, both recorded human history and Earth’s geologic history make it abundantly clear that climate change is nothing new. Our planet and its human, plant and animal inhabitants have experienced frequent, profound, often sudden and frequently disastrous warming and cooling, flood and drought cycles over millions and billions of years. Nature rules our planet – not humans or manmade “greenhouse gases.” The complex and powerful forces that govern our climate are still only poorly understood, and far more potent than anything humans do. Moreover, throughout history, periods of warming have been beneficial for all our planet’s species, whereas periods of cooling have often been disastrous.

    Third, coping with and adapting to climate changes require ingenuity, technology, energy and wealth. However, it is precisely these essentials – especially access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy – that are most at risk under the agendas being promoted by global warming (climate change) alarmists. That in itself is another reason why legislators, regulators, judges and voters should read this report.

    In short, Climate Change Reconsidered is a thoughtful, thought-provoking, cool-headed antidote to the alarmism that has been driving far too many policies, laws, regulations and other decisions all over the world in recent years. It underscores the “precautionary principle” that SHOULD be applied here: Climate alarmists must prove, with clear and convincing evidence, that we face an imminent manmade climate disaster, and that their “solutions” will avert that disaster, without creating even bigger problems – before any such prescriptions are implemented. They have a long way to go to make that case.

    Paul Driessen
    BA in geology and ecology, JD in environment and natural resource law

  5. Roger Helmer

    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.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published.