In a related story, the UK's Guardian Unlimited reported Friday that scientists have been offered cash by lobby group/think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) - a group funded by ExxonMobil - for articles undermining the IPCC report.

It's also been reported by CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/?postversion=2007020306), Reuters, and others.

I wonder if our own Mr. Kenneth Cohen, Vice President of Public Affairs for Exxon/Mobil, has a comment on this. Surely Mr. Cohen would not want us left with the impression that Exxon/Mobil is using its record profits (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/D8N0VRD80.html) to manipulate the scientific community for its own crass financial advantage.

I'm sure that our resident skeptics will be glad to explain how this is just an example of Exxon/Mobil's commitment to full and objective research.

Hot And Bothered (If you can?t predict the past you can't predict future Global Warming?)
Investor's Business Daily 5 February 2007 staff

We'll stipulate that the planet is warming. It's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. It's been warming since Newsweek warned in the mid-1970s of the onset of the next ice age.

We'll even agree that man has contributed to rising carbon dioxide levels by activities that include breathing and driving the kids to soccer practice.

...Problem is, they ignore the planet's own history. About 20,000 years ago, long before the first SUV, global sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are now. Sea levels were rising long before the Industrial Revolution and will likely continue to rise, just not at the cataclysmic rates predicted by computer models.

...All these prophecies of doom are based on computer models that are based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather or climate. Not all these variables are known or fully understood, which helps explain why these models can't even predict the past.

When the Clinton administration, which never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification, produced a voluminous climate report, it selected two climate models.

One, from the Canadian Climate Center, forecast dramatic temperature increases. The other, a British model, predicted dramatic increases in precipitation.

Climatologist Patrick Michaels examined these two models and discovered they could not reproduce recorded temperature trends regardless of the period selected. The Canadian model overestimated actual U.S. warming in the 20th century by 300%.

When you can't grasp the past, how can you predict the future?
...
...

I suggest you read the follow up to the Guardian's report, in which the actual letter is printed.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_01_28-2007_02_03.shtml#1170541963

Media have focused on the broad spectrum of the panel, more than 500 scientists that all seem to be in agreement on the conclusions of the report. When the constitution of the panel is broken down, it represents 113 nations, all appointet by governmental institutions or by UN itself.
The scientists may well be objective in their opinions, but the difference of opinions within the panel seem not to be representative of the differences found in the free scientific discussions of the theme of Global Warming. By reading history reports on climate fluctuations, the major variations in recent times seem to have been caused by volcanic eruptions around the globe.

The release of the much heralded, 21-page IPCC report on global warming, which summarizes the approved theory on the subject, is yet another effort to drape what is essentially a political issue in the mantle of scientific authority, and promote a political agenda and the interests of particular groups at the expense of competing global interests. With this report they've raised the stakes and moved further away from science and deeper into the realm of politically driven opportunistic alarmism.
Read more: http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/04/070753.php

All together now, can anyone spell "interglacial period"? Notice that behind all the hype, the theme is "the GOVERNMENT has to do something". Let's see now, Florida has hurricanes, but people live there anyway. California has earthquakes and wildfires, but people live there anyway. Washington has volcanos, but people live there anyway. Oklahoma has tornados, but people live there anyway. So what is the simplest, cheapest thing the GOVERNMENT could do to fix this problem? How about determine the areas of greatest risk for natural disaster and refuse to insure or fund rebuilding in those areas? Oh my gosh, then people would have to take responsibility for their own actions. What was I thinking? That would never work. Come on folks, the earth changes. Ever hear of Pangea? Didn't early Americans walk over from Siberia? There are some pretty good arguments out there that our response to climate change is a big factor in our success as a species. Let the earth do her thing. In a million years no one will know the difference.

Global warming ,as an issue, presents itself as more of a political agenda, i.e. left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, etc. Until both sides of the issue are given equal attention, credibility of the issue will probably depend upon a person's political persuasion.
When global warming is used for a political "soapbox" by political personna, such as Al Gore, whose rantings and ravings have gotten him the attention he seems to need, the issue is reduced to just another social/political debating point. The willingness of some politicians to suborn the sovereignty of Uncle Sam to foreign interests,i.e the Kyoto Treaty, has put many of us on alert when it comes to electing officials who espouse these ideas requiring international entanglements which effectively reduce the U.S.'s ability for self-determination.
Global warming/climate change may very well be a political issue in the '08 U.S. elections. Hopefully both sides of the issue will be given a proper airing so people can make an intelligent decision.

Global warming is one of the biggest lies being peddled by modern man. Because global ice has been receeding from the planet for thousands of years.

Gee...I didn't know that stone age camp fires, the invention of the wheel, the industrial revolution, and my modern vehicle caused the end of the Ice Age too.

http://earth.rice.edu/MTPE/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age.html

To celebrate the release of the new global warming report....I may go out and buy a new 4 wheel drive SUV.

Personally, I like the idea of non-fossil fuels as well as improving the quality of the world we live in. But, how in the world can someone say the scientists who approved the IPCC report have no ulterior motive? Of course they do. There are billions of dollars at hand for grants and donations, and billions to be made by non-fossil fuel companies seeking to break into the mainstream. The final outcome of this report needed to be what it was so these "experts" could maintain their level of power and gain in their prosperity.
The problem with the IPCC report is that it never followed the ethical standards that such profound reports require. For instance, a large portion of the people who approved the IPCC writing are not scientists at all, but instead bureacrats (this in and of itself makes the report extremely suspicious at best). All writing was done behind closed doors by invitation only, and the voting had to be unanimous. Now I have a question: If there are dissenting voices present, how in the world can this report be unanimous? It can't! The process was rigged before its completion because the thousands of GW skeptic scientists were never allowed to participate in the first place. There was absolutely no room for debate. I applaud our government for turning a wary eye to this report since our very governmental freedom is based upon the debate and discussion the IPCC failed to give.
Do I believe that all who participated were lying fools? Absolutely not. But whenever bureaucrats are allowed to have a voice, and the voices of dissent are purposely kept silent, that's a scary notion for anyone who considers themselves seekers of the truth.

I am currently in the middle of the Midwest "arctic blast"...it is currently -6 F here according to accuweather's site for my city. Scientists cannot determine when this blast will dissipate exactly, or exactly how cold it will actually get, so I am subsequently disinclined to read this report, because I, too, am capable of writing a 21-page report designed to scare the world into depression, but I am choosing instead to wear gloves. Until science can predict tomorrow's weather, and fully explain yesterday's, many people, obviously including myself, do not feel obligated to have any respect for the opinions of 2000 scientists trying to secure next year's funding for their "research".

Dear AccuWeather,

I wish to ask to simple questions, that are being asked by many. I know these questions have been heard before, but I have yet to here an answer to them:

1. If "global warming", as the short-term, recent climatic trend is called, is due to mankind's activities, then what explains past global climatic changes (i.e.: before man was capable of producing hydrocarbaons)?

2. Are there any natural (not man-made) sources for hydrocarbons, or other "ozone-depleting" gases? If so, what are they, and how large is their impact?

Thank you in advance for your reading this posting and answering it in a clear, scientific fashion.

Best Wishes,

Joe Sheppard

I'm still having a hard time finding where they describe how they come up with their confidence intervals (ie., very likely, etc.). Could someone point me in the right direction?

I've also noticed that they have downplayed the Medieval Warm Period by stating that it falls within the range of uncertainty, however that was derived. I've also noticed that all these dire predictions are based on models. (Garbage in, garbage out.)

Laura,
I find it difficult to understand what is so evil about ExxonMobil funding research into this UN sponsored research. I doubt very much if the UN would sponsor research that might shed some seeds of doubt on their pet project for redistribution of the world's, no, make that the United State's, wealth. Someone needs to fund it. Besides, until the scientific method has been applied to the science of global warming, the debate has not been settled and is definitely not over.

Yes, I believe in global warming! In 1200 years the whole earth will be incinerated and it will not matter anymore! (2 Peter 3:12).

Yes, warming will be with us for quite a long time all other things being equal, but we can make a difference in the future severity now. An ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of cure.

Paul - the qualification of terms such as "very likely," etc is in a footnote, I believe on page 3 of the summary.

As for the funding issue - it's fine for a corporation to fund science, so long as that science is subject to the peer review process, in my opinion.

The summary is wrong anyway. Water is the most important greenhouse gas. That is atmosphere 101 that use to be taught in high school. So if these 2000 scientists have left water out of the equation then what good are they as scientists. I know I wouldn't employ them.

Think about something.

If you went to a doctor and he said you were sick, but he gave you a summary of results without giving the actual results, would you believe that doctor.

e.g. The doctor says,"you are sick and you could die in 5 years. However I cant show you the data yet(X-rays, CAT scan, blood tests) but trust me and I will cure you.

Meanwhile said doctor gathers someone elses blood tests, x-rays etc etc. That is the position of the IPCC. They say the world is sick and that we need to act on it, yet they have not released the actual data (until they doctor it).

Steve - the report calls carbon dioxide the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. That is, the most important one caused by man.

The full report is apparently awaiting observational data from late 2006 along with a final proof read. Not that that will change the mind of anyone already convinced the report is "doctored."

Laura

The media and most of the rest of the world don't know that. "Most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas" will get reported as "Most important greenhouse gas".

Water should be mentioned in the summary since there is at least 100 times more then CO2. If they are so concerned with CO2 then they should be comparing it with water on why they think 370ppm is more important then 10,000-40,000 ppm. However they dont do this. That is bad science.

Now what other endeavor would be allowed to put out the summary before releasing the full report with data? Uhmmm can't think of one right now except maybe other government type reports. Normal scientists couldn't get away with it if they submit a paper for peer review or to a magazine so why should the IPCC get away with it unless they have an ulteria motive? If they don't have an ulteria motive then they are nothing more then sloppy. If they are sloppy with the report then maybe they have been sloppy with the science.

Either way its bad IMHO.

Steve, the important thing to remember about water vapor is that it lacks persistence, i.e. the amount of it in the atmospere is a function of other things.

Simplified explanation: If you take a quantity of air and warm it, any available water will evaporate and increase the humidity. Cool the same air and some of the water vapor will precipitate out. By contrast, much of the CO2 we put into the air stays there.

As Laura points out, the IPCC very much does take water vapor into account. It is not possible to explain climate behavior without doing so.

I should add that another reason we don't hear about water vapor as much is because (simplified explanation again) it is very hard to measure on a global basis (since its lack of persistence causes humidity to vary greatly from place to place). CO2 by contrast mixes thoroughly so that a number of measurements taken at locations remote from CO2 sources can be averaged to get an accurate global number.