In another case of “it’s OK, if you are a denier” It turns out that the much trumpeted NIPCC report written by Fred “Tobacco” Singer and a few other deniers fails in regards to basic openness and transparency (to say nothing of the ‘science’). This is especially true when compared with IPCC and other scientific reports, as the EPA makes clear (h/t to Eli):
A review of the NIPCC Web site indicates that the NIPCC report was developed by “two co-authors” and “35 contributors and reviewers” from “14 countries (http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html). The organization does not appear to have established any procedures for author selection and provides no evidence that a transparent and open public or expert review was conducted. Thus, the NIPCC’s approach stands in sharp contrast to the clear, transparent, and open procedures of the IPCC, CCSP, USGCRP, and NRC. Relying on the work of the major assessment reports is a sound and reasonable approach.
The fact is that climate science is remarkably open and transparent, yet deniers are not satisfied. And despite these calls for even more openness and transparency, deniers see no problem with abandoning these principles as long as the right conclusions are reached.
This is denialism at its best, and in no way does it resemble skeptisism.