Slashdot Mirror
UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world's top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. 'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall. One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
Nothing could be sillier than some fake UN panel investigating itself.
Whatever anyone thinks of AGW or GW or CC or anything else, this has to be seen for the nonsense that it is.
There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.
- to review the work of another independent panel?
UN agrees to let scientists disagree ...
... and this won't be any different. Their contribution will most likely be just another thumb on the political scale of this controversial topic.
The UN doesn't really do anything very well
Here's how I see it: Something is causing the environment to change. It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount. Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control, our car, is the place to start. Cars are necessary, we don't know what we would do without them. That doesn't mean we can't point to them as an issue. The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die. Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening. In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought. But in the end, they don't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem.
Shh.
Why would the U.N. need to do this? THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED according to Al Gore. Man-made global warming is destroying the planet and the only way to fix it is to be heavily taxed for all use of carbon and give that money to the international banksters. I'm not too clear on how giving trillions to criminals will fix the planet, but if I was smart I probably wouldn't believe the global warming scam at all.
Can anyone prove that IPCC doesn't have some WMDs? I know I'd like to make sure they don't.
By who?
I was thinking the same thing. For example, a political action group could be using this process to strip climate science of the peer-review process. As a consequence, certain ideologically motivated (*cough* laissez-faire capitalists *cough*) institutions will further their actual claim that there isn't scientific consensus.
However, there was scientific consensus in the 70s.
So -- how do you know what is real?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The main problem with this issue is that science and government operate very differently. When are people going to realize that governmental panels on climate change will not work as science.
The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions. This is what has been said all along.
The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy. They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.
I suppose it's intended to demonstrate integrity, to develop another report confirming that the errors did indeed exist (and possibly even uncover others). They should even go in with the full intent of finding serious errors, should they exist. But failing to find those errors will not convince anybody who needs convincing. Nor can I imagine what would.
The 2 big issues I've heard about that report are the citing of a non-peer reviewed source for the Himilaya glacier and an incorrectly phrased line about flooding in the Netherlands (propertly cited, just incorrectly stated)
Now those two mistakes should not be in a paper from such a highly regarded organization, but...
THE PAPER WAS OVER 3000 PAGES LONG.
If I were to write a 3000+ page paper and only had 2 significant mistakes in it, I would be freaking estatic! I mean really, we are humans, there are going to be mistakes in everything we do. That the IPCC has been so responsive in retracting the parts of the paper that have not stood up to review and that out of such a huge document so few mistakes have been reported, shouldn't we instead see this as a great work?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
"Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
If it's crucial, it should be peer-reviewed. If no one has time to peer-review the material, it shouldn't be part of the basis for multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions. How is that non-obvious?
Peer review indeed isn't a guarantee for proper science if easily-debunkable crap like this can get through peer review.
Ceci n'est pas une
One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals,
The whole point of peer reviewed literature is that you can accept it as being probably well researched, having assumptions that are probably correct. If you want to include non-peer reviewed research you cannot scan the article, and especially not its conclusions, but you will have to check everything! So you start doing your own peer-reviewing turning them in peer-reviewed articles. If that's not done by someone qualified, having some non-peer reviewed 'respected research' included is dangerous in that it may contaminate good research with crappy stuff.
And if this 'respected research' is worth something, it's probably already used/cited in peer reviewed articles I would imagine.
In any event, the non-believers have a small success. From mistakes in a report (everyone makes mistakes), results a scan of more literature. Will that change anything? Almost certainly not. The uncertainties in climate models are known, but what's not in doubt (by real scientists) is that there is change (at least partially man-made) and besides the crackpots or people who just don't give a damn [ I remember an interview in a dutch TV programme ca. 2004 IIRC with someone senior in the US government who simply said: If other countries want to clean up the air, fine, we're not going to do it because it would hurt our economy ], this seems to serve no-one. I.e. it's more like politics.
IPRIPCC would be such a badass acronym!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
It has nothing to do with "concensus", there's no belief that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years. It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of "telephone".
That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it.
Do you have ESP?
Wow an independent panel to investigate a independent panel that's a novel concept
It's good that another review has been announced in order to offset the political hype, but it's discouraging that there was political attacks on the science to begin with. As the article points out, the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report, which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades. Criticism of this single error has only gained traction because of pointless repetition by critics who stand to make some profit over creating controversy.
The discussions and debate should be focused on policy, not on the science. We have already made our best effort at determining whether there is a problem. Now we need to determine what to do about it.
Remember what used to be the mythical North-West Passage? I hope to be wrong but there is now ocean where you can sail ships through that used to be a global ice cap.
Shh.
Because not matter the cause of the blip we now have a self-reinforcing cycle of methane release from our permafrost that will have effects. I'm all for our winters not sucking as much as they used to, I just hope the rest of the world fares as well.
Shh.
Philip Campbell was one of the "scientists" selected to join the "independent" review panel for the UEA leaks. He later had to step down when it was revealed that he had already made up his mind before any review:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/aposclimategateapos+review+member+resigns/3536642
I'm sure he was replaced by somebody equally independent and impartial and that we can expect the same level of impartiality from the UN's review of the IPCC. This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money.
There should be no panel to investigate stuff, as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3's document (that is not about the science basis for AGW).
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs. What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years. But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study. Doesn't that prejudice the findings? What if (just a hypothesis) the data shows that the climate is not going through any kind of change that is out of line with historical patterns of change. The conclusion would be that the current dynamics of that climate to not represent a "macro" change in the climates behavior.
Why not name the panel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Monitoring? Let the data suggest the conclusion, not the panel name.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
When your premis is false your entire argument is false no matter how long winded your argument is.
Claiming that 2 significant mistakes is no big deal is like claiming that if you built a bridge out of a million stones and only two in the base were severely damaged you'd be happy. The bridge collapsed. Why are you happy?
Work Safe Porn
In the name of balance, it would be good also if a financial audit panel were created to
review and disclose in a public report the funding sources and amounts which
prominent climate change skeptics and denier-advocates have received.
I'm not accusing anyone. I just think it is fair that, as part of the vitally important public debate,
we should know who is behind the various positions we are hearing on this issue.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
The panel concludes that there were only minor errors with the IPCC, and AGW is still an issue. AGW proponents cheer, saying "I told you so!" AGW detractors claim conspiracy, it's politics, and AGW is still not a problem, or that throwing money at it won't solve it.
The panel concludes that there are serious problems with the IPCC and that AGW really isn't an issue. AGW detractors cheer, saying that's what they thought all along. AGW proponents claim there is a conspiracy, it's politics, and the problem is still real.
Also, whether some climate change is unprecedented or not is logically unconnected
with the three questions of:
1. Are we a substantial cause of the current change trends
2. Should we try to alter the current change trends
3. Can we alter the current change trends
Humans and current species have a particular climate regime we are used to and thrive
in. The questions are about our role in moving climate out of that comfort zone, and whether
we are smart and capable and collectively motivated enough to reverse the trend and keep
it within the comfort zone of the currently constituted biosphere/current species and their
current habitats, including our own, on the planet.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
... if they want people to take their science seriously, they've got to quit getting misquoted in Oil Company backed blogs and media. I mean, that stupid nonsense about their article on the world freezing over from that magazine they had nothing to do with, is a great example of why this controversy still exists. Even when people point out that it's a bogus and that science can always change -- it gets repeated over and over again. What's up with that, Climatologists? Your opinions are only like a few thousand, and there are many more non-climatologists getting quoted on this controversy -- you can't even beat out a Russian Economic Think tank that gets money from US oil concerns.
Heck, the LOL-Cat has more press savvy than you guys.
Instead of 100% of you Climate Scientists lying for that $10,000 grant, and your Grad Students being in on this huge global conspiracy -- you should go out and earn 10 times more with your math skills on Day Trading, get a lot of money, and learn how to rent-to-own press outlets. Maybe some of your grant money would be better spent on advertisements on CNN rather than all this blinking electronic equipment.
Stupid scientists!
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
This is the problem, people get away with blatantly false claims because they are able to name names and quote "facts" that they read in a political article by a non-scientist, even if their "facts" are totally wrong. And then a few emails taken out of context confirm that any "pro-global-warming" scientists can be dismissed out of hand because of an alleged global warming conspiracy. It's a pretty cheap logical trick, but the sad thing is it works over and over.
There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point
The CRU emails show show no such thing.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
In watching this spectacle, this faux debacle unfold, I am struck that most of what is being said is devoid of any real rational scientific argument. A statement was written that made an unsubstantiated claim. SO BLOODY WHAT! It is freely admitted that the evidence for all of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 doesn't exist. So the scientific process works then, it admits what it doesn't know. But most if not all of the attacks I am reading do not make actual scientific arguments. They instead attack the public's trust in the institutions of science. And the public's trust in scientists is completely irrelevant to the truth of their arguments. Most of what I read from the attack posts here amounts to irrational ad-hominem attacks on honorable and truth seeking scientists. Nothing more. You denialists. You faux-skeptics. By relying on irrational ad-hominem attacks you are chipping away at the rational foundations of our society, eroding the foundations of logic and reason which have enabled our civlization to rise above humanity's savage and irrational nature. Your attacks on the noble scientific institutions that have given us unprecedented prosperity have the potential to eventually devastate our social and economic well being. Shame on you.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Soon W, Baliunas S (2003) Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Clim Res 23:89-110
wikipedia meta-article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
The Wikipedia article claims that Climate Research's chief editor, Hans von Storch, has said:
before resigning. The publisher (Inter-Research) wrote the following editorial afterwards. Funnily enough they also publish a journal titled "Ethics in Science" :-) I hate to be in their shoes.
:-).
That quote comes from here ("Global warming: a load of hot air?") which has a nice summary of the politics (in 2004).
Lemme see if I can find the stolen CRU e-mails themselves..
Ah here, on the quite climate-skeptical looking website the Air Vent blog.
Can't find anything specific about the Soon and Baliunas article though.
The people at realclimate.org have done their utmost best to clarify and debunk the e-mails here.
To quote: "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants". In my personal opinion, the RealClimate debunking was believable, although it definitely showed us all that the CRU scientists were biased against the climate sceptics. They look a bit paler and more faded under the shock of sunlight they received on their e-mails
Still, if the CRU climate scientists are petty and biased and spiteful but their scientific argumentation is solid (as I believe it still is--but I'm not a climate scientist), then I think we should look forward to reducing our CO2 production to the levels of 1990 and then even lower. On a worldwide level this becomes a problem for sociology or politics.
<incoherent_rant_mode>
I strongly suggest to read the last chapter of Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, he mentions how a societal (in this case, even global) problem can be recognized, even on time, but still the governing elite can be unwilling or powerless to do what is necessary to mitigate it due to social or cultural constraints (i.e. as if the Greenland Norse refused to live in igloos because it was "un-european" and "un-civilized"). Maybe I should even try to read Joseph Tainter whom Diamond refers to.
I was alive and conscious in the '90's, and I can tell the young ones, that to live at a level of industrial production similar to in the '90's (Kyoto protocol proposal, a reduction of 5%, which the USA refused to sign) doesn't mean abject poverty while being enslaved to the CO2-measuring communist overlords, as some climate sceptics try to paint it. But then again I was born in Europe, not in one of the Asian Tigers for example, so that colours my perspective strongly.
</incoherent_rant_mode>
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The one where somebody broke into a computer and stole a bunch of stuff then released it a way that just happened to give maximum benefit to some of the richest people on the planet.
Google and the NSA found out who wrote the code behind their break-in. They found out what buildings the attack came from. Where is the equivalent law enforcement action here? And where is the news coverage of the real actual crime?
Of course I'm being rhetorical, I know it can't and won't happen.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
It was most likely open during the medieval warm period as well. Then froze over solid during the little ice age. That is most likely, although it cannot be proven one way or the other, it is probably true. We don't have records about ships making it through then, but it was warmer then than it is now in the more northern and arctic regions and we know for a fact that the vikings had habitable settlements where it is all frozen ice now and you can't grow anything, so that ups the odds of it being navigable to the same extent it has been in the last few summers.
If you can accept that, then let's take that into consideration for what is being proposed today, OK?
Basically, all they have proven so far is we have short, medium and longer lasting climate cyclical changes. Well sure, this is obvious, and no one disputes that.
They haven't made any point that co2 levels are worth spending trillions of dollars to try and prevent. Especially with the bulk of thse trillions going to high stakes wall street gambling. They haven't even come close to proving such gambling will "save the planet".
Now, if you want to talk just straight harmful "other than co2" pollution from burning fossil fuels, sure, plenty of evidence for that. And if they, they being the agw crowd, would keep hammering that home, they would achieve the goal they want with much less rancor and and dispute. And who owns and gets the fossil fuels, especially petroleum has certainly lead to a lot of nasty wars, and still does today, as does access to uranium and uranium manipulation technology. And coal is just dirty, we all agree on that, there's no such thing as clean coal.
Combined with the the benefits of decentralized and alternative energy, spreading the energy wealth out into many more pockets than happens now, plus reducing the cash flow that goes mostly to rather dubiously "nice" regimes or
"nice" huge corporations who are kingpins of the military industrial complex, you would have even less resistance to trying to reduce the burning of fossil fuels.
If you keep insisting on economically stomping all over the established developed nations middle class, who are reeling now as it is, you are going to suffer fail, and outright revolt, and until you divorce your "science" from the global cap and trade outright congame, to which it is now completely linked at the highest levels and therefore has this "science" compromised and suspect, you won't have as much success with the general public as you wish.
If you keep insisting that a gas that humans and other animals exhale is legally a "dangerous pollutant that must be regulated", you are going to have VIGOROUS resistance to that. It is a terrible precedent. It might not be applied today, but the potential is certainly there to start regulating humans over it.
The more you keep pushing the congame solution to what is still just a non verifiable theory, the more people are going to resist your ultimate doom scenario.
The more you keep ignoring climactic cycles, making believe they are just extremely minor, the more people are going to resist your ultimate doom scenario.
If you can divorce yourself from the cap and trade con game, completely, just take it off the table and repudiate the goldman sachs crowd, who are ecstatic over the possibility of a trillion a year stolen from people from all over the planet so they can gamble around with it and create even more financial products, you just might have more success in establishing cleaner energy programs and getting more people to take you seriously.
On this very site for suggesting CO2 might not be the only driving factor, like it was some kind of blasphemy to question the "consensus". I don't see any of those same people showing intolerant zealotry now. This scandal has now become a case of alice and how far the rabbit hole truly goes. And now we are expected to believe the same UN which brought us all those embellished warnings of destruction is going to conduct a non-partisan investigation of itself? Pull the other one. These people should be sacked and publically denounced, but all we get is a whitewash. I've noticed recently that a lot of these same scientists, who rely on the opulent grants afforded them by taxpayers, have debased their arguments and unabashedly claimed the underlying science is right and further debate is still forbidden in a fashion befitting that of the most morally self-righteous twelfth century crusader.
You mean something like this I presume.
This was actually difficult to find: Woodward & McDowell lobbying firm, AB 32 Implementation Group.
Other maybe interesting links:here, or this slightly more activist website.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."
Or, to support a predetermined conclusion.
'Nuff said.
Regards;
In the end it doesn't really matter too much. Any solution would involve some negative economic effects and many of the governments have no intention of doing any such thing. China which considers economic advancement the key to social stability and the US which considers itself already losing a trade war with china. So the attack on the science is more about providing a distraction / excuse for why nothing substantial will be done at the political level.
The discussion of the science, and how it is mis-represented, is very interesting though. I found this youtube video series by potholer54 to be a pretty fascinating introduction to the subject, with good coverage of issues and links back to actual papers.
Here's the problem. Scientists are not PR specialist. Nor do they receive funds in anything like the amounts necessary for a any sort of PR campaign. However, those with vested interests in discrediting climate science have buckets of cash to wage a PR war.
Shout out enough lies long enough and soon they are the truth. This happened with smoking, acid rain, and the ozone hole. Trying to wage a campaign to prove you're right is the surest way to fail, and scientist seem to know how to do this in spades.
You don't win a PR war by convincing people you are right. You wage an effective PR war by discrediting your opponent and appealing to emotion. You attack by coming up with half-truths that have just enough believability or statements that make just enough sense to the layperson that you get people wondering. Once the cracks are there, you just keep hammering. Soon, you can start making more and more outrageous claims. People will no longer question anything you say because your opponent can't or doesn't respond fast enough or doesn't respond in a manner that isn't easily digestible into sound bites.
At that point, your opponent is finished. Nothing on $DIETY's green earth will ever convince the people your opponent is correct even if they have a 10 PB data center full of research and data to back up their claim and the pope to boot.
The scientist have lost and will continue to lose the PR side until the adapt the tactics every other mud-slinger out there uses. One can only hope that saner more logical minds listen to the experts in the field rather than Joe Teabagger.
~X~
~X~
A disclaimer: i am a physicist (phd) working in an area unrelated to climate research. I am personally convinced that putting the ecosystem out of balance so far as we are doing it now is a terrible idea. To the question of gray literature. a) politically: excluding gray literature would hit the skeptics harsh. So yes, you are welcome to ask for that. At the same time we should ask to review the talks which are given by industry-payed lobbyists in backrooms in Washington (and other capitals) for references to such gray literature and track this. The politics has to decide if they want to base their decisions on Science or Lobbyist money. Excluding gray literature reduces Lombards pseudo-arguments in his book to shambles. BTW: in that case also kiss Creationism good bye. b) empirically about non-peer reviewed publications: The overwhelming majority of scientists/persons who circumvent peer review know why they do so. The overwhelming majority of non-peer reviewed papers strongly opposing a common scientific viewpoint is proven to be utterly wrong later. Half of what climate skecptics cite can be debunked by anybody with elementary physics knowlegde (e.g. a bachelor). c) observation of conspiracy theories: the Skeptics generate some conpiracy theories. Statistically most conspiracy theories are bullshit. But we in science compiracies blocking publications have been rumored about from time to time. Empirically i think they are small. Science has shown that it adopts new ideas quickly (e.g. theory of relativity, quantum physics took only a few years - and for sure against quite some establishment) d) Scientific misconduct in the climate community: Yes. It exists. As it does in any other field in the science. And yes, people have buddies and discuss with them to skip one or the other data point. Sadly. In comparison to how much was lied in the beginning of nuclear technology, the misconduct which i have seen published are small. In gray publications there is no code at all for scientific misconduct. e) IPCC boards: The more scientific working groups had no problems. The real problems where the working groups who should estimate the consequences (non-scientists). Ironically instead of asking the scientist in the IPCC they copied non-peer reviewed material (written by non-scientists).
Whether or not I believe we are spelling our quick demise is really none of my concern. Many publications on the topic have claimed much of the damage is irreversible. Some seem to inappropriately model the data (read: make accurate predictions). Inability to make such predictions isn't proof of incorrectness, but instead, it makes me ponder the usefulness. However, while I do I have my reservations on these findings, I do have a strong opinion on energy. With our current plans, it's quite finite.
In short, I'd rather have more money being poured into renewable technologies, even at the expense of climate change research (not cutting it). If we know the proposed solution is a future-bound inevitability (regardless of the validity of climate change theory), what's all the fuss for? I'd just suggest to look at how much money and power the industry of energy holds. That's why it's political.
I will add that I believe what bothers me about some "Global Warmists" is the animosity and push for dramatic overnight change. Some people even discard nuclear energy, dubbing it too dirty. Sure, it's not perfect but it's a farcry away from coal and a good stepping stone as we search for better answers.
Infrastructures have to be rebuilt. New technologies must be found. Limitations must be overcome (wind, etc.) Resources must be considered every step of the way. Money is also required. Focus on the solution. It will be needed no matter the issue.
One would expect the data behind any worthwhile gray literature to be incorporated in peer-reviewed literature. Perhaps it remains gray is because the data isn't worthwhile.
It is not unreasonable to suspect that the effects on climate of the last three hundred years cannot be reversed in a decade or two, no matter how much effort we expend. In that case our efforts would be better aimed at survival in the new circumstances rather than trying and failing to restore the previous circumstances.
I am a real denier. I know that things, including the climate, change. I deny humans can reverse the process.
--
If you can't be a good example, you have an obligation to be a horrible warning.
"which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report...."
Inaccuracies?
You've got to be kidding me.
The data was downright FRAUDULENT.
Inaccuracies my a**.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
"Scientists" deliberately mislead and misrepresented facts to promote an agenda. To a non-scientist, that taints the issue. And it wasn't a one-time affair. You can't just "look at the science" any more because you no longer have a way if knowing, without actually being one of the scientists, what the hell "the science" is.
The existence of something is irrefutable proof of its possibility. In this case, the thing that you can no longer dismiss as "extremely unlikely" is "deliberate fraud with respect to climate data for the purpose of promoting an agenda."
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
If AGW were so factual, its proponents would not be so adamant about hiding data. A scientist has not so much to hide even when he harbors doubts about his conclusions because his overriding concern is not to be right or to profit, but that the Truth is discovered and by provable steps Knowledge progresses.
Carbon is a precious resource we should preserve because we need it. It's an important part of the photosynthesis process that plants use to store solar energy into a form that's remarkably compact and has incredible utility both for energy dense uses like transportation and accomodation of humans' thermal needs, but in the production of food. We are not well served by giving it to phytoplankton that feed zooplankton that sequester it in calcium deposits on the floor of the oceans.
We live in an interglacial age. By fits and starts the temperature is rising as it is expected to - and we should be glad of that. A habitably warm Earth is not by any measure the norm in geological time, especially for our teeming billions. A glacial age just will not support 6 billion people. The skewed graphs that made the end of the last millenium into a hockey stick that implied a runaway greenhouse effect have been thoroughly debunked. We're still contributing CO2, and the warming stopped. If the spike existed at all, and was not an artifact of the interpretation of the data, the point remains that fifteen years on, the global climate did not increase by 5c. The sky did not fall. We are not being punished by brutal hurricanes. The Himalayan glaciers are still there, receding at the expected rate. If Men have an impact on climate, it is so small as to be unworthy of notice. Even if we used up all of the fraction of carbon fuels left accessible to us as wastefully as possible, we could not impact the climate once again as much as we have already. If anything, the arable zone has moved closer to the landmass and that's not a bad thing.
All of that carbon was once in the air. Let's not forget that. That's how it came to be in the form and location it is in. It was sequestered by plants once before and it will be again. Far more carbon than this was once in the air and is sequestered in limestone deposits which are even now being subducted into the Earth's mantle to be seen again nevermore. If you think a Hummer produces a lot of CO2, you should look at Mayan plaster. You need not go so far as South America though - wander down to the Home Depot and read the ingredients on the box of Beadex texture (pdf) that your contractor textured the walls of your home with (Limestone, >85% by weight). The Earth was once much warmer than it is, even in human history. When that carbon (both the limestone and the fossil fuels) was in the air before, the Earth did not turn into Venus and it won't this time either because we could not with all our technolgy even release all of the carbon that was in the air before. Most of it is now dissolved into the Earth's core - and even when it was in the air Earth still went through glacial cycles and didn't runaway into Venus. It just can't happen. It was life that transformed the Earth into an environment habitable by humans, and it's life that will defend that equilibrium. We're rich, we're smart, and we're active, but we're a fraction of a percent a percent of the planet's biomass. We're just not that important in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, climate change means the oceans rise - as they always have. At mere millimeters per year the message really shouldn't be "Run for your lives" - but more like "It might be wise to encourage your children to build their huts a few meters further from the rising sea". Yes, the Sahel region of Africa and the Chinese Gobi desert and a thin strip of South America will become less habitable over time as part of this natural cycle. If humans
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Clearly it's the decrease in the number of pirates So says our the great noodle in the sky.