Challengers to the view that climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions are readily available via the internet, Alan Royal writes.

Even scientists need to be reminded sometimes that scepticism, not conformity, is the higher value in the pursuit of knowledge.

The December Country-Wide printed two thought-provoking messages on the ‘truths’ about climate change. Both messages suggested we need to reassess the widely accepted views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). Those messages and this article show the power of the internet and its related technology to open debate on environmental issues.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) at was created to give neutral scientists an alternative outlet to the IPPC for their work, and the world a genuinely independent source of research on this.

To quote: ‘The NIPCC is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.’

The independent NIPCC reports have been vigorously attacked by some environmentalists and global warming alarmists (see response), who view it as a threat to their claim of a “consensus” in favour of their somewhat extreme views.

In 2009, a hacker or ‘whistle blower’ made available on the internet, a collection of email exchanges among leading authors and contributors to the IPCC reports. The ensuing scandal was called Climategate (see). It exposed efforts by IPCC authors to withhold data from independent scholars and attempt to prevent peer-reviewed journals from publishing research that undermined or questioned their own work. The hacker or ‘whistle blower’ released a second batch of emails (see) that made even clearer that the IPCC process was broken.

The IPCC’s history, described as sordid, has raised calls for the IPCC to be dismantled.

This article is not about ‘brainwashing’, but rather about directing readers to up-to-date science-based views on climate change by the NIPCC (described in Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, available free), suggesting the IPPC material is politically rather than scientifically generated. There are good reasons that politicians and their advisers need to read this independent publication and (maybe) reconsider their views on climate change.

The NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered II – Fossil Fuels – Summary for Policymakers (2018), is the latest in a series refuting much of the IPCC published material. If you read nothing else, look at the comprehensive tables commencing on p13 of the report.

An interesting, brief and readable paper titled Global Warming Surprises, can be viewed at It raises three main points of error in the IPPC publications. They are inconsistencies in the surface temperature record, their explanation as artefacts arising from the misuse of data and thereby explaining the failure of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to find credible evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Importantly, the author notes ‘temperature data in dispute can reverse conclusions about human influence on climate’.

As noted, I do not intend this article to be one of ‘brainwashing’ on the climate change debate. I do hope though that you can direct our politicians to look at the reasoned and valid scientific explanations by NIPCC related to climate change, before introducing more of those recommended by the IPCC.