Once again, the IPCC estimates are proving to be underestimates of the problem of climate change. That’s what you get with consensus. Yes, we’re confident that the results will be at least as bad as the IPCC forecasts, else some country with financial interests in continuing to burn fossil fuel will reject the statement. But, what we don’t get is the full range of estimates. We get the most watered down statement, not a statement of the greatest odds.
Here’s an interesting tale of two spins. Both of these articles are reporting on the same event, findings released by a Dutch environmental agency that agree with the IPCC conclusions. Strangely though, the two articles are clearly intended to present a very different image.
There are two main points from the findings of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
1) The IPCC is generally correct that global warming caused by humans already is happening and is threatening the lives and well-being of millions of people.
2) There are some minor errors, including typographical errors in specific predictions of the IPCC, that “do not affect the whole construction [of the IPCC report].”
… otherwise, the few hundred peer reviewed articles summarized and referenced in this pre-Copenhagen summary showing, once again, that climate change is worse than the uber-conservative IPCC has been estimating might really scare me. I mean, what if it were really true that these few hundred recent peer-reviewed articles show that:
Read the rest of this entry »
I’ll keep this post short. I usually try to do more than just current events on my blog. In this case though, I’d just like to make sure everyone is aware that we may have already silently crossed a major greenhouse gas level without even noticing it right away. It’s pretty scary stuff. Note that this is not yet considered peer reviewed, AFAIK. It is merely a comment about what is likely in the next IPCC report. I count IPCC as more than just peer reviewed, personally.