Note that "denialist" is a very broad (not to say loaded) term. A better term would be: skeptical of the claimed "consensus" that we need to drastically reduce CO2 emissions, even if the economic costs are huge, or else the planet is doomed.
I wanted to give you a chance to show me something I hadn't seen before, on the off chance that maybe somebody, somewhere, was actually doing intellectually defensible work that wasn't being publicized...and you bilged it by bringing up the same utterly discredited junk that's in the denialist toolbox. I mean, you do realize why it's named the NIPCC, right? It's named that to confuse people with the IPCC, an actual scientific organization that does not lead off their papers with statements about how politically independent they are.
The mindset that compels one to the false equivalency you are choosing to employ between a policy group's own paid-for studies and the peer review process of, like, actual science is exactly why I use the term "denialist".
(For folks interested in a pretty good rundown of exactly why I and folks who pay attention to this may react in this manner towards the NIPCC, I recommend this as a great summary: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-inst... )
Neither is the IPCC report, taken by itself. It references peer-reviewed work. So does the NIPCC report. Did you bother to actually read any of it?
NIPCC is bankrolled by...
In other words, you didn't bother to read any of it. You just assumed that they must be wrong because of their funding source. Well, guess what? If we're going to judge by funding sources, the IPCC itself is just as suspect. They are funded by governments which have a vested interest in increasing government control over all aspects of life. Government-funded research is not likely to come up with the answer, "No reason for government regulation here", even if it's the right answer.
If you want to play the funding source finger-pointing game, sorry, I'm not interested. I don't care who funds what; I want to see the actual content. See below.
the IPCC, an actual scientific organization
No, the IPCC is a political organization. It's an Intergovernmental panel. It uses information from scientists, but the final reports, and particularly the summaries for "policymakers", are driven by politics, not science.
the false equivalency you are choosing to employ
Not at all. Anyone can refer to peer-reviewed science, and both the IPCC and the NIPCC do so--see above.
Actually, if anyone is making a false equivalency here, it's you; you are equating "peer-reviewed science" with "valid science", which is simply laughable. Many peer-reviewed papers turn out to be wrong, for a variety of reasons: honest mistakes, insufficient knowledge in the field, reviewers too busy to really review, and corruption of the peer review process by political agendas.
If you want to actually distinguish valid science from invalid science, you have to look at the content. There is simply no shortcut; there is no way to tell what's valid science by looking at funding sources, or "consensus", or any other indirect measure. You have to look at the actual content. In the case of the IPCC, there's a very simple content question you can ask: have the IPCC's predictions about the climate matched the actual climate? The answer to that question is "no". No amount of harping on how wonderful the IPCC's process is will change that.
I recommend this as a great summary:
This article makes the same mistake you are making: it looks at process instead of content. There's not a single substantive point addressed; it's all about who is funding whom and what process they are using. Sorry, no sale.
University of East Anglia emails are actually a thing
So we're supposed to disregard one group's arguments because of some perceived bias, but look the other way when "our team" is guilty of unprofessional, unscientific behavior.
This is exactly the kind of special pleading political advocacy that is a disaster for good science.
