Firstly, let me quote the last sentence of the ES:
"Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty
as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change,
and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing."

The IPCC report allows "an unavoidable element of uncertainty" by
equating "very likely" to a 90 percentile probability. Furthermore, it
quotes the ranges of different scenarios. It is therefore "very likely"
than a part of the climate change, but not all of it, is anthropogenic.
This is therefore not contradictory.

Whether or not it is a good or bad thing depends on where you are. It is
very personal and such a statement has NO place in what is purported to
be a purely scientific assessment. When I see emotional interpretations,
then credibility flies out the window.

Then, when I see "Our work is financed by tax-deductible contributions
from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations." without
names, I think of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and their offshoots etc.
as being possible major contributors. Who bites the hand that feeds
them? Compare this with
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

Yes, there are still many naysayers. I await, with impatience, the full
IPCC scientific report which, hopefully, will be published next month.
Until that comes out, we have no yardstick by which to measure the
veracity of the modelling (and neither have the writers of this report,
which is based essentially on a 20 page summary, not the ~500 pages of
the full report).

Finally, whether climate change is partially anthropogenic or not - and
I believe it is from all the evidence I have seen - there is an even
more compelling reason to cut down on using fossil fuels: public health.
I'm sure I've touched on this before, but see here
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/climate_change.htm#Public%20health
if you wish to know more.

Brian

Steve Gregory wrote:
> I was given the link below to read, and it credibly dicusses another
> point of view about "global warming".  I cannot just dismiss this paper.
> It seems well supported by some prominent researchers and is backed-up
> by data. I just wonder what some of you think?
>
> I've pasted the conclusion of the paper which seems to say that global
> warming may not be man caused, and might not necessarily be a bad thing.
>
> -Steve Gregory-
>
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf
>
>
>
> The Earth.s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not
> understate the
>
> difficulties involved in analyzing it. Despite the many data limitations
> and uncertainties,
>
> knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved
> and expanding
>
> data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic
>
> mechanisms.
>
>
>
> The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200
> years,
>
> and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years
> exhibits warming
>
> trends in many places. Measurement problems, including uneven sampling,
> missing
>
> data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends
> difficult. Other,
>
> more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean
> temperatures yield
>
> smaller warming trends. The actual climate change in many locations has
> been relatively
>
> small and within the range of known natural variability. There is no
> compelling
>
> evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.
>
>
>
> The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the
> framework of
>
> a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured
> changes. The
>
> hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of
> producing
>
> a significant warming of the Earth.s climate since the start of the
> industrial era is
>
> credible, and merits continued attention. However, the hypothesis cannot
> be proven by
>
> formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the
> hypothesis to be credibly
>
> disputed.
>
>
>
> Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can
> never be
>
> decisive as supporting evidence. The computer models in use are not, by
> necessity,
>
> direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical
> approximations for many
>
> of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere. They are
> tuned to
>
> produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but
> this does not
>
> guarantee reliability in future climate regimes. And there are enough
> degrees of
>
> freedom in tunable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting
> evidence for
>
> any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from
> greenhouse
>
> gases.
>
>
>
> There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment
> Report that the
>
> uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical
> hypothesis testing
>
> or modeling exercises. Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable
> element of
>
> uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future
> climate change, and
>
> indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.
>