"This report-considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research-focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.
"

So basically this is the "SCARY STUFF" for the mindless sheep, to be cowed into accepting this massive fraud. "The polar bears will all disappear in 5 years..."

In other news... "Britain is to enact the toughest laws on carbon emission in the world to reduce its impact on global warming, the Government announced yesterday."

How completely absurd! A nation of seemingly reasonable and intelligent people will enact all kinds of draconian measures on their economy, in an effort to limit climate change, WITHOUT ANY CLUE AS TO WHETHER ANY OF IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT!!

Laura,
I was under the impression that the actual "science" of the IPCC assessment would be published; I'm not sure how this can be emotional. I'm waiting to see how they treat the paleo-climate reconstructions -namely how the IPCC dealt with some of the issues of MBH9X that cropped up since 2003. Will they adjust the Hockey Stick? Will the IPCC force paleo climate scientists to use established statistical procedures as advised by Dr Wegman, as well as force scientists to publicly archive thier raw data and source code? Also of interest will be thier take on tropical storms and AGW. It wasn't until the 2005 storm season that we saw scientists agressively link the 2. How the IPCC deals with this will be telling.

IMHO, the actual "science" and the conclusions will essientially be on the conservative side. I don't think there will be any bombshells; most of the topics (drought, tropical storms, increased CO2 concentrations, etc..) have been well covered. Yet, I have a suspiscion that the spin will not match the report.

I just watched "The Great Global Warming Swindle" last night and it is incredibly informative. You can find it on YOUTube.
Anyone who has watched "Inconvienent Truth" needs to watch this movie and be set straight.
They use the same date that Mr. Gore used to debunk his own theory, and actual climateologists explain it it instead of just the inventer of the internet.
Co2 doesn't cause temperature change, it FOLLOWS temperature change. They used the same graph of 5000 years of ice core data to show that there is an 800 year lag between temperature and Co2 and that temperature is actually leading the way! That debunks the main tennant of the Global Warming/Anti-captialist movement!

There is so much else but you all have to see the movie which includes tesmimony from several scientists who were involved with the IPCC but disagreed and left only to have their name left on the list of the "2500" leading scientific contributors. The number is probably closer to half that, with the other half leaning the other way on climate change.

So, Chris, are you saying that the 25 trillions tons of CO2 that we've emitted into the atmosphere will disappear, and then 800 years later, will magically appear again?

You're hilarious.

With so many people tossing their two cents in (like myself) on the Global warming topic, it is not surprising that it is often very hard to get a proper perspective on what is a very, VERY, complex system...our climate.
Like anything, conclusions are only as good as the information upon which they are based, and unless you take into account ALL the aspects and details known that impact climate, you conclusions will be skewed.
Take for instance the above comment on the 800 year lag of CO2 vs Temp. A good rebuttal can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 in which it highlights the detail missing from the above post that the 800 yr lag only occurs during the FIRST 800 years of a given warming period. After that, it preceeds or tracks. Conclusion: CO2 may not be the trigger, but rather the accelerating/catalyst to runaway warming.
Positive feedback systems in Nature often have stable points, where the various mechanisms counteract stressors, but at some point one or several systems go non-linear and then new variables become the main players.
No REAL climatologist doubts we are now into a warming trend and a rapid one. We can't stop it, but maybe we can slow it giving us time as a species and society to adapt.

In response to The Skeptic: hmmmm, let's try nothing and see if it works, because that's much cheaper and easier. Me, I'd rather not be saying "oops, I guess we should have at least tried to clean up our act" 50 (or even 10) years from now.

Arnold:

So it is the FAKE climatologists that don't believe in AGW. Thanks for that tidbit of info.

As far as your cite, interestingly written and somewhat convaluted. It would seem to show that the process of warming that REAL climatologists say is happening began about the year 1200 taking into account the fact that we are told often that we have entered the runaway portion of the cycle. The most interesting portion is left out in your post. That being that the cite mentions that it is felt that CO2 is stored in the deep ocean and released as ice melts and mixes in the ocean current. That leads me to the conclusion that if the warming began 800 years ago (obviously before the industrial age), mankind's burning of fossil fuels did not lead to the current issue that we are all so wound up about, and further, the apparent staggering rise in CO2 concentrations is due to the release of CO2 stored deep in the oceans long before the onset of the industrial age.

I therefore put forth that the amount of CO2 we are presently emitting is inconsequential to GW. I say this because it is clear that in the past, so the AGW proponents and REAL climatologists have stated, CO2 levels were higher without the help of man. If, mankind has induced large increases in CO2 levels, the concentration seems like it would be much higher.

To base that analysis upon 3 "careful" studies of ice cores, I am curious about what the other, probably numerous, ice core studies showed. Did they not agree with these results and are then discounted as being not careful? I jsut find it amazing that anything that kind be used as evidence for AGW is deemed as "expert" or "careful" or "peer-reviewed" but anything not is just no right.

Jackie:

I don't think that is what the skeptic is implying but rather to take action based on possibly flawed data and fear is absurd. Let us remember the "Bush postulate", where, according to the recent majority, we learned that actions should not be taken solely because of the fear of what might happen or the evidence onhand at the time the action was taken.

Mark:

While I would never endeavour to doubt the veracity of your claims, simple math yields that the CO2 put out by man is equal to 9 pounds per square foot of earth. Granted it is dispersed over a column of air many miles high, but does that number really seem realistic or is it just a really big number that can be tossed about? Especially since, as I understand it, we produce roughly a quarter of all CO2 out there.

Let us remember the "Bush postulate", where, according to the recent majority, we learned that actions should not be taken solely because of the fear of what might happen or the evidence onhand at the time the action was taken.

This statement is pure baloney.

We now know that there was no "evidence onhand" at the time the action was taken. Instead, there was only speculation supported by cherry-picked rumor. We also know, thanks to the Libby prosecution, that the Cheney/Bush White House aggressively pursued anybody who dared expose these precarious foundations. Darren may be confusing "Bush Postulate" with the now-descredited "Bush Doctrine", articulated by Bush in his 2002 speech to West Point.

Laura, I'm sorry. You simply can't publish right-wing distortion like this and not allow them to be rebutted.