Today the U.N. released the first of four summaries due out this year on climate change but don’t expect this one to tell "the whole truth and nothing but the truth”!
There are some very interesting findings here(pdf) and here since the last report in 2001. One of which is the changing from “likely” to “Very Likely”!!!
Global warming is ``very likely'' caused by humans, and temperatures and sea-levels will increase by the end of the century, the UN said in its most comprehensive report yet on climate change.
Global temperatures are likely to rise by 2 to 4.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century relative to the last, with a ``best estimate'' of 3 degrees, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in the report, published in Paris. Sea-level gain over the same period may range from 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches), it said.
A key change in the report's language from that used in the panel's 2001 document showed there is more certainty that human activity is causing the warming. The report puts the probability of the link at more than 90 percent, compared with the 66 to 90 percent likelihood signalled in 2001.
Read On...
If you your sensing sarcasm in my tone, you’re on the right track.
There are many shady things going on with this debate which is now solely a political issue and especially in this report.
According to Richard Lindzen professor of atmospheric science at MIT “The IPCC Summary for Policymakers, roughly 20 pages long, is primarily the work of political appointees, not of scientists.” and points out that the full text will not be available for another three months two of which are due out in April and May.
So this is how it works now? Scientists report some findings then political policymakers create a summery to be released three months before the actual study, and this is what we’re going to call scientific proof?
Lindzen goes on smacking these alarmist doom-pushers down by questioning the tactics being employed here:
the rules for the fourth assessment report specifically require changes to be made to the body that will bring it into line with the summary statement.
"If you were doing that with a business report, the federal trade commission would be down your throat," Lindzen said.
"These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations," Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl wrote on his website last week.
"If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it," Motl said. "Instead, they will 'adjust' the technical report so that it looks consistent."
The relevant provision, which appears in an appendix of the IPCC's principles, also attracted the attention of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a global warming skeptic and long-time critic of the IPCC process.
In a statement Inhofe slammed what he termed the "systematic and documented abuse" of the scientific process by the IPCC and called for changes that would mitigate against relevant scientific evidence from being excluded from its reports.
At least one resigned from participation in the report.
Nonetheless, at least one scientific expert saw fit to resign from participation in the latest IPCC report, because he says "media sessions" associated with his research on hurricanes and tropical cyclones were being misrepresented.
Christopher Landsea, who is now science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, resigned from the IPCC's fourth assessment team two years ago.
In his resignation letter, Landsea expressed concern over statements by the IPCC to the media, which he said were "far outside current scientific understandings."
Landsea told Cybercast News Service his primary concern was with how lead authors representing the IPCC were interacting with the public and the media.
The hurricane activity Landsea has observed over the past 12 years is not, in his estimation, out of proportion with what was experienced in the mid-20th century during the last active hurricane cycle.
While he believes a "good portion" of the warming that has been detected most recently is manmade, the "sensitivity" to those changes in the areas where hurricanes form has been "very tiny."
Landsea also said the most relevant, up-to-date work done in this area comes from the The International Workshop on Tropical Cyclone, rather than from the IPCC.
Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis says “the IPCC draws from experts in fields that don't necessarily have the best perspective to properly assess the factors behind warming and cooling periods.
And
Bonner Cohen, author of "The Green Wave: Environmentalism and Its Consequences," said in an interview he had similar concerns with what he views as an overly narrow perspective on the science of global warming.
He described geology as the "dog that is barking but being crowded out."
Cohen also said the political summary available on Friday, which precedes the release of the actual scientific data by three months, will overshadow the most important findings in the full report.
"It is safe to assume the summary will have the usual buzzwords, it is going to talk about 'dire consequences' and this is going to be for the media," he said.
But the actual report -- when it comes out later this year -- will be read by less than one percent of the world's journalists and will be treated accordingly in the media, Cohen predicted.
As I’ve recently said here the debate rages on! Rational leavel headed scientific debate in this issue is not over, in fact, it’s just beginning in my opinion. As long as we continue to allow this debate to be driven by alarmist and socialists manipulating and lying about the data to further their agenda of persecuting the west and 1st world nations. Or the corporate globalists that who continue to use their influence to change the wording or leave out damaging language in government reports, we all lose!
You've taunted the AGW-bots who will now surely swoop-down on our site with their proclaimations that The Science is Settled!TM and the like. Hope you're ready for a couple of server-resets over the next couple of hours!
Because Heaven knows we ought not be directing any skepticism toward a group of do-gooders who are trying merely to re-arrange entire economies because "Their computer models say so". No, no. Cannot have that.
But hey, AlGore has apparently managed to parlay Global Warming hysteria into a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Not bad for a guy who couldn't secure Clinton's 3rd term against a candidate for whom English is his 2nd or 3rd language and was widely believed (among the smart set, of course) to be a dullard.
---------
So libs, how's that binding congressional resolution to STOP THE WAR!TM coming along?