NationStates Jolt Archive

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth report this week. Or, more accurately, they released a summary of their fourth report. They call it the "Summary for Policy Makers". Here it is:

Summary for Policy Makers (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Approved_05Feb.pdf)

The final report itself won't be publicly available until May, so until then this summary is all anyone has to use as any sort of official source on climate change. This summary gets all the press, and when the actual report is available, no one (certainly no one in the press) will bother even to look at it.

Except, this summary wasn't written by scientists. The actual report (which isn't yet available) was written by scientists, and I suspect it's a fine document. But this summary was written by diplomats.

There exists another summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. The other summary WAS written by scientists, and if you compare the two you'll find that the independent summary is far more equivocal in its assertions. It's far more willing to point out what the IPCC does not know, and the gaps in data of which the IPCC is aware. Whereas, the IPCC's summary does nothing of the sort.

Here's the independent summary:

Independent Summary (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/Independent%20Summary2.pdf)

Each item in the Independent Summary refers to a specific section of the full IPCC report, so you can easily cross-reference the two to verify that the Independent Summary is not lying to you.

Here are a few pieces of information you can find in the Independent Summary, but not in the Summary for Policy Makers:

* Since 1979, weather satellite measurements have shown little or no evidence of atmospheric warming. The warming detected ranges from the low end of previous IPCC forecasts to nearly zero. Model predictions require that warming is amplified in the tropical troposphere, but that warming simply is not occurring.

* Perception of increased extreme weather events are likely due to increased reporting. There are insufficient data to reliably confirm these perceptions. In other words, there is no compelling evidence that unprecedented changes are already underway.

* While there are insufficient data to show any conclusive trends in Antarctic sea ice thickness, Arctic sea ice thickness has been static since 1990, despite having shown an abrupt loss prior to 1990.

* Long-term precipitation trends, snow depth, and snow-covered area have shown no globally consistent pattern.

* Natural climatic variability is believed to be substantially larger than estimated in previous IPCC reports. Similarly, this report recognises far greater uncertainty associated with reconstructed historical temperatures.

And the two biggies:

* It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.

* Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible.

Hang on, if the final report isn't publicly available until May, what are this lot basing their report on? I'm genuinely confused here.

Speaking of global warming, I was shocked to see how many Americans didn't believe that global warming was a serious concern.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/187.php?nid=&id=&pnt=187

Of the 30 countries polled, the US had the highest percentage of people brushing off the realities of global warming. For comparison, 4% of Saudi Arabians didn't view it a urgent threat, as opposed to 21% of Americans.

Except, this summary wasn't written by scientists.

bullfuckingshit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12301211&postcount=27)

when will you learn that trusting the denialists is a surefire way to make yourself look like an ignorant buffoon?

There exists another summary of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. The other summary WAS written by scientists,

all ten of them. i took a look and didn't see any that were actually engaged in climate research recently. mostly i saw known jokes like mckitrick.

Hang on, if the final report isn't publicly available until May, what are this lot basing their report on?

mainly "is not, is not! la la la, i can't hear you!!!"

Hang on, if the final report isn't publicly available until May, what are this lot basing their report on? I'm genuinely confused here.
A draught report was released last year.

all ten of them. i took a look and didn't see any that were actually engaged in climate research recently. mostly i saw known jokes like mckitrick.
Climate scientists. PhDs, mostly.

McKitrick's not even listed in the writing team. Way to read.

bullfuckingshit (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12301211&postcount=27)

when will you learn that trusting the denialists is a surefire way to make yourself look like an ignorant buffoon?
Let's assume you're right, and the IPCC's summary was written entirely by scientists (even though I can't identify most of the names on that list). Where does that leave us?

That leaves us with two summaries which paint a very different picture of what the IPCC report actually says. Rather than deciding now which one is right, shouldn't we wait until we read the bloody report? Let's find out which summary misleading us. Even if it's both of them, but that should teach you not to trust blindly anything the IPCC says.

Climate scientists. PhDs, mostly.

actually, i see a bunch of retired meteorologists, a mathematician, an economist that can't do math, and an engineer, with two people active in climate science (one of which has the word 'paleo' involved).

McKitrick's not even listed in the writing team. Way to read.

no idea what specifically he did as the coordinator, but he's right there on page 4

Let's assume you're right, and the IPCC's summary was written entirely by scientists (even though I can't identify most of the names on that list). Where does that leave us?

That leaves us with two summaries which paint a very different picture of what the IPCC report actually says. Rather than deciding now which one is right, shouldn't we wait until we read the bloody report? Let's find out which summary misleading us. Even if it's both of them, but that should teach you not to trust blindly anything the IPCC says.

Wha? You're the one posting the damn thing and claiming it casts doubt on the whole shebang.

Let's assume you're right, and the IPCC's summary was written entirely by scientists (even though I can't identify most of the names on that list).

google is your friend

Where does that leave us?

with a couple well known denialist cranks on the one hand, and data on the other.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/fraser-institute-fires-off-a-damp-squib/#more-398

ah, the rude pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/understanding-nie-and-global-warming.html). has quite the way with words:


According to the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the position of the United States in the global warming crisis is roughly analogous to, say, a guy who's had his dick nailed to a dinner table in a room that's been set on fire. Motherfucker's only got a few choices, none of them good. And, really, what you'd choose pretty much says where you stand on global warming. If you're the Bush administration and its enablers, you try to pick up the table and get out of the door; of course, the table's not gonna fit, but you'll just keep trying to get out with your dick until the whole place burns up, taking you with it. If you think that it's way past time to do what the report recommends, you say, "Fuck it," rip your dick off, and get the fuck out of there, hoping that maybe medical science'll one day be able to fashion you a peter out of your ass muscles.

If you're an American - hell, a human being, well, you're just standing there, hoping someone rescues you before you're a crisp.

And if you're a global warming denier, you tell yourself over and over that it's not getting so hot in here.

ah, the rude pundit (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/understanding-nie-and-global-warming.html). has quite the way with words:


According to the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the position of the United States in the global warming crisis is roughly analogous to, say, a guy who's had his dick nailed to a dinner table in a room that's been set on fire. Motherfucker's only got a few choices, none of them good. And, really, what you'd choose pretty much says where you stand on global warming. If you're the Bush administration and its enablers, you try to pick up the table and get out of the door; of course, the table's not gonna fit, but you'll just keep trying to get out with your dick until the whole place burns up, taking you with it. If you think that it's way past time to do what the report recommends, you say, "Fuck it," rip your dick off, and get the fuck out of there, hoping that maybe medical science'll one day be able to fashion you a peter out of your ass muscles.

If you're an American - hell, a human being, well, you're just standing there, hoping someone rescues you before you're a crisp.

And if you're a global warming denier, you tell yourself over and over that it's not getting so hot in here.

And if your the average conservationist, your trying to put out the blaze with a dixie cup full of water.

Sounds like Llewdor took Colbert's "Second Opinion" idea a wee bit too seriously. That is, seriously at all. :rolleyes:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/fraser-institute-fires-off-a-damp-squib/#more-398
Ooh. Let's quote from that, shall we?
The basic approach taken by the Fraser Institute Report is to fling a lot of mud at the models and hope that at least some of it sticks.
That's not a defense of anything. That's a complaint about the Institute's arguing style. And an invalid one, at that. If the mud sticks, the report still gets dirty.

I take particular exception to this one because they've attacked my entire argument style. If someone makes a universal claim, all I need do to disprove it is find a single false instance. That's what the Fraser Institute is trying to do here.
Of course, if one looks at enough details one is bound to find some areas where there is a mismatch between models and reality.
This is exactly the Independent Summary's point. Thanks for agreeing, RealClimate.
Modellers do this all the time, as a way of improving the representation of physical processes.
So they fudge the numbers to get the answers they want?
However, to highlight a few shortcomings without asking what their implications might be for climate sensitivity, or whether the mismatch might be due to data problems rather than model problems (as in the case of tropical lapse rate), gives a distorted picture of the state of the art.
The state being, it's wrong? That it makes inaccurate predictions? Stop me when I get close, here.
An examination of the model shortcomings in the light of the vast range of important things they get right leaves the fundamental premise of the cause of warming unchallenged...
The fundamental premise is BASED on those details. If the details break, something's wrong with the model.
...and to see why, one needs to turn to a balanced assessment of the science such as represented in the full IPCC report.
Which is exactly what I'm suggesting people should do, but the IPCC hasn't released the full study. I'm curious as to why.

In short, the full IPCC report is the only way to resolve these disputes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth report this week. Or, more accurately, they released a summary of their fourth report. They call it the "Summary for Policy Makers". Here it is:
Why are you such a hardcore warming denier?

What if the majority of experts are right and human activity is causing global warming, and people and governments don't do anything about it - then we'll really be in the shit!

The study was commisioned by the Fraser Institute.

What do we know about this institute?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute
gives us this:
In 1999, the Fraser Institute sponsored two conferences on the tobacco industry: "Junk Science, Junk Policy? Managing Risk and Regulation" and "Should government butt out? The pros and cons of tobacco regulation." {Ibid]

More recently, the Fraser Institute has led the campaign to deny the science behind and the dangers of climate change, with several of its fellows and authors signing letters to political leaders and writing Op Eds to that effect. ExxonMobil donates to the Fraser Institute for "climate change" work.

Professor Ross McKitrick, author of the popular book that denies climate change "Taken By Storm" and known for his opposition to the Endangered Species Act in Canada, is also a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

And this is informative too..
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=4399cb65-c847-4d63-ac8c-21c045ec90ed&k=50786
But groups such as the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, which has received research funding from U.S. energy giant ExxonMobile Corp., say it's too soon to know if the Harper government will accept their view that the dangers of climate change are grossly exaggerated.

But just because the source is biased does not mean the information is bad.

Who cares, Llewdor is unconvincable. He says "wait for the real report", but if that doesn't agree with his ideological prejudice then he will dismiss it.

Why are you such a hardcore warming denier?
I'm not denying the warming. I'm denying the certainty with which the alarmists claim the models predict the future.
What if the majority of experts are right and human activity is causing global warming, and people and governments don't do anything about it - then we'll really be in the shit!
There are solutions available that don't rely on large emissions reductions. A space-based solar shield can stop the warming almost immediately should it come to that.

Why are you such a hardcore warming denier?

ideological reasons mainly

There are solutions available that don't rely on large emissions reductions.

...like blocking out the sun! yeehaw!1!!

There are solutions available that don't rely on large emissions reductions. A space-based solar shield can stop the warming almost immediately should it come to that.

Wouldn't it be easier to cut emissions than to spend trillions of dollars on a giant spaced-based solar shield?

I'm just thinking that it would be better for our economy to encourage the development of newer, more advanced and energy-superior technologies like the ones encouraged under emissions-control laws than to continue to rely on fossil fuels, which are approaching obsolescence anyways?

Not to mention the geopolitical benefits of reduced consumption of oil and natural gas...

I'm not denying the warming. I'm denying the certainty with which the alarmists claim the models predict the future.

There are solutions available that don't rely on large emissions reductions. A space-based solar shield can stop the warming almost immediately should it come to that.
This is the most ridiculous thing out. You started a thread to draw our attention to summaries of a specific report. Although you claim people ought not to be drawing judgements until the full report is available, your reason for raising either is to deny the certainty with which according to you, some vague group make some claim/s, with some vaguely undetermined excess of certainty.

Quite how you imagine either or both reports could possibly prove that without having being judged - ie unless we pre-judge ahead of the full report (you know the one you say we shouldnt pre-judge ahead of), I cannot possibly begin to conceive.

Evidently, it's bloody obvious which summarises the report best. Your alternative summary report states as much in a round about way.

When you see a person clasping for such flimsy straws, you cant help but conclude that surely even they know they're drowning.