There are no scientists there, they are PR men and political scientists.
Heartland's funding is from fossil fuel interests. Heartland used to get some of their funding from insurance companies but the insurance companies all abandoned Heartland when they started that campaign of calling all the global warming people unibombers.
There is another way to determine that the NIPCC report is a scam. Click on the report and scroll to the end where they list all the authors.
As always, you will see the names Willie Soon and Fred Singer. But if you internet search all the names, you will see that none of them are qualified.
The NIPCC report is a rebuttal report and there is no point in reading the NIPCC until you have read the IPCC report.
Re: “The NIPCC report is a rebuttal report and there is no point in reading the NIPCC until you have read the IPCC report.”
If you mean the most recent yet-to-be published IPCC report, you are mistaken.
The NIPCC rebuttal report - “Climate Change Reconsidered” - is a four part series that began in 2009.
The last volume in that series - “Fossil Fuels” - will be published in December. Work on “Fossil Fuels” began in 2014, and its focus is on the economic and environmental impact of fossil fuels compared to renewable energy.
The full, final draft of “Fossil Fuels” contains almost 3,000 citations to peer reviewed literature.
Re: “There are no scientists there [at Heartland].”
If you mean Climate Scientists, there are only a few.
However, Fred Singer, who you single out as not qualified, taught and directed research in Atmospheric Physics for almost 30 years at the University of Maryland and UVA.
In any event, Heartland is a Climate Science “fact checker” and not a research institute.
If Climate Science is only understandable by Climate Scientists, then it is a self-serving philosophy, not a science, and it is completely useless to policy makers.
Re: “Heartland's funding is from fossil fuel interests.”
And Climate Science is funded by government and university interests, and it is intensely marketed by Hard Left media interests.
Bottom Line - there are sound, scientific reasons to disagree with man made global warming.
To my eye, the current warming is simply a predictable snap back from the Little Ice Age, which is plainly visible on any temperature chart for the last 10,000 years.
My advice - be careful what you wish for.
20,000 years ago, CO2 to fell to 180 ppm, the lowest ever recorded.
If it had dropped to 150 ppm, most plants would die or stop growing, and every large land animal on Earth would have gone extinct.