Brian,

I understand what you are saying, but when you say that the report was
funded by oil companies without so much as a shred of evidence is just
plain wrong. To hurl such accusations at a report that has a different
take such a complex subject as global warming doesn't seem very
"scientific" on your part now does it?

Below is a commentary that addresses some of issues you raised:

The data's limits 
Appeared in the National Post 
  
Author(s): 
Dr. Ross McKitrick, Senior Fellow, The Fraser Institute 
 
Email: [log in to unmask] 
  
Release Date : February 6, 2007 
  
The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
released last week is the latest assessment of climate science. A lot of
conscientious effort goes into these reports. As someone who has
published research critical of past IPCC reports, and as an expert
reviewer of the present one, I disagreed with some sections. But I also
find that in many places the report is informative and balanced. 

Unfortunately, little attention has been paid to past IPCC reports. Most
readers instead focus on the short Summary for Policymakers, which
starts from a draft prepared by scientists, but then is heavily
rewritten by government appointees in a multilateral negotiating
process. Past summaries have been criticized for not reflecting the
complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty in the underlying reports. They
may also distort the underlying report by placing major emphasis on
topics that are relatively minor, or by highlighting new and untested
research. 

This has led to concerns that, whatever the merits of the IPCC report,
its summary is not an accurate representation of its contents, and that
it reflects a bias towards alarmism and understatement of uncertainty. 

For this reason, in 2006 I agreed to coordinate a project on behalf of
the Fraser Institute, to produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers
(ISPM), which was released yesterday. (And no, despite rumours on the
Internet, it was not funded by Exxon.) 

The ISPM has been written by qualified scientists, not bureaucrats. Our
writing team included a member of the American Meteorological Society
governing council, the leader of a climate modelling laboratory, a
world-renowned expert on extreme weather and storms, as well as experts
in statistics, arctic climatology, atmospheric physics and meteorology. 

At no point did the sponsors (the Fraser Institute) exert any editorial
control of any kind. Even the question of whether "policymakers" is one
word or two was left up to us. By contrast, the IPCC's sponsors --
namely governments -- exert full editorial control, and have in the past
forced revisions on text supplied by the scientific team. 

While many IPCC contributors and reviewers are listed, no indication is
given as to whether they disagreed with the resulting report; nor does
the IPCC point out that the scientific community does not review the
summary after government negotiators have rewritten it. The ISPM, by
contrast, was reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world, and
their review responses are tabulated so that readers can see the extent
to which it received their support. 

The IPCC summary downplays uncertainty in subtle ways. For instance, the
full IPCC report discusses at length the limitations of climate
modelling prior to presenting tentative projections, and the IPCC
discusses the uncertainty of many key climate data sets as part of its
discussion of trends and changes. But the IPCC summary highlights the
model projections and data trends as if those underlying uncertainties
did not exist. The ISPM, by contrast, provides a full treatment of the
uncertainties, along with a discussion of model forecasts and data
trends. Consequently it is much longer than the IPCC summary. The extra
detail is essential for accuracy. 

Every point in the ISPM text is cross-referenced to the exact section of
the underlying IPCC report, and wherever possible we have used our best
estimate of the IPCC's own wording. For this purpose we worked from the
revised draft as released to the expert community in summer 2006, at the
close of scientific review. We will check the ISPM against the final
text once it is released (possibly in May), and we will issue an
appendix to note any changes as needed. 

What, then, is the bottom line? Quite simply, it is a mistake to look to
the IPCC for a simplistic conclusion, as if one little phrase could sum
up a mountain of complex research and ambiguous data. Different readers
are interested in different issues, including Arctic sea-ice coverage,
the Kilimanjaro glacier, global precipitation trends, tropical
tropospheric temperatures, sea levels, Atlantic hurricanes,
climate-model accuracy, atmospheric-methane levels, paleoclimatic
reconstructions, and dozens more. The ISPM provides a summary of what
the IPCC says about these and other issues. People who are used to
simplistic Al Gore-style rhetoric will probably find it surprising that
the IPCC admits to so much uncertainty. 

Still, brief conclusions can be helpful. The writing team agreed on a
one-page statement of conclusions that is not in the IPCC text, but
which reflects their views. These conclusions were also strongly
endorsed by most reviewers. They state, in part: 

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. 

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 modelling 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. 

For those facing the task of decision-making, an understanding of the
real limits of current scientific knowledge is a necessary starting
point. The Independent Summary for Policymakers helps to clarify those
limits. 

-----Original Message-----
From: EnviroNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Ellis
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...

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.
>