Skip Navigation

Written Evidence Submitted to the Commons Select Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament

December 7, 2013

The written evidence reprinted in the attached PDF was submitted by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

polar ice caps

The Commons Select Committee of the U.K. Parliament in October 2013 opened an inquiry into the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as published in its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The Select Committee solicited written testimony from hundreds of people and organizations, exploring “the conclusions of the IPCC, the extent to which the conclusions are robust, and their impact on national and international policy making.”

The written evidence reprinted below was submitted by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. It is available online, along with written evidence submitted by scores of other individuals and organizations, at the Select Committee’s website at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/energy-and-climate-change-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/the-ipcc/.

The testimony addresses the following questions:

  • How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report?
  • Have [sic] the IPCC adequately addressed criticisms of previous reports?
  • How much scope is there to question the report’s conclusions?
  • To what extent does AR5 reflect the range of views among climate scientists?
  • Can any of the areas of the science now be considered settled as a result of AR5’s publication, if so which? What areas need further effort to reduce the levels of uncertainty?
  • How effective is AR5 and the summary for policymakers in conveying what is meant by uncertainty in scientific terms? Would a focus on risk rather than uncertainty be useful?
  • Does AR5 address the reliability of climate models?
  • Has AR5 sufficiently explained the reasons behind the widely reported hiatus in the global surface temperature record?
  • Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change?
  • What implications do the IPCC’s conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report have for policy making both nationally and internationally?
  • Is the IPCC process an effective mechanism for assessing scientific knowledge? Or has it focused on providing a justification for political commitment?
Author
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the coauthor, with Dr. Robert M. Carter and Dr. S. Fred Singer, of Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (The Heartland Institute, 2011), and with Dr.
media@heartland.org
Author
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D., a long-time policy advisor to The Heartland Institute and a world renowned authority on climate change, passed away on January 19, 2016. He was 74.
Author
Dr. S. Fred Singer was among the first and is still the most prominent scientist in the world speaking out against global warming alarmism.
singer@sepp.org