Canada's Fraser Institute has released their own Independent Summary for Policymakers in London overnight.
Like the UN/IPCC's Summary for Policymakers released to great fanfare on Friday last, this report summarises the science behind the reports. Unlike the UN/IPCC's Summary however, the Fraser Institute's summary of the science is actually written by scientists.
"[The UN/IPCC] summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.“The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”
Delivered in London last night by Dr. Ross McKitrick (co-destroyer with Steve McIntyre of the UN's "hockey stick" fraud) as well as Andrei Illarionov (Ayn Rand enthusiast, and former advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin), David Henderson (former head of Economics and Statistics at the OECD), and noted environmentalist David Bellamy, who is also a member of New Zealand's Climate Science Coalition. The full Independent Summary for Policymakers is available here at the Fraser Institute's website. Here's a summary of what the report says:
• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging from nearly zero to the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there.
• Temperature data collected at the surface exhibits an upward trend from 1900 to 1940, and again from 1979 to the present. Trends in the Southern Hemisphere are small compared to those in the Northern Hemisphere.
• There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway. Perceptions of increased extreme weather events are potentially due to increased reporting. There is too little data to reliably confirm these perceptions.
• There is no globally-consistent pattern in long-term precipitation trends, snow-covered area, or snow depth. Arctic sea ice thickness showed an abrupt loss prior to the 1990s, and the loss stopped shortly thereafter. There is insufficient data to conclude that there are any trends in Antarctic sea ice thickness.
• Current data suggest a global mean sea level rise of between two and three millimeters per year. Models project an increase of roughly 20 centimeters over the next 100 years, if accompanied by a warming of 2.0 to 4.5 degrees Celsius.
• Natural climatic variability is now believed to be substantially larger than previously estimated, as is the uncertainty associated with historical temperature reconstructions.
• Attributing an observed climate change to a specific cause like greenhouse gas emissions is not formally possible, and therefore relies on computer model simulations. These attribution studies do not take into account the basic uncertainty about climate models, or all potentially important influences like aerosols, solar activity, and land use changes.
• Computer models project a range of future forecasts, which are inherently uncertain for the coming century, especially at the regional level. It is not possible to say which, if any, of today’s climate models are reliable for climate prediction and forecasting.
“There is no evidence provided by the IPCC report that the uncertainty around climate change can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modeling exercises,” McKitrick said.
“What does this mean for the average person? It means that while scientific evidence shows the climate is naturally variable, we still don’t know the extent to which humans are contributing to future climate change and whether or not such change is a good or bad thing. People who are bewildered by the intense global warming alarmism of the past few years should read the Independent Summary for Policymakers to get a more accurate and balanced understanding of the real state of knowledge on this important subject.”
LINK: Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - Ross McKittrick et al, Fraser InstituteRELATED: Global Warming, Science, Politics-World
2 comments:
Have you seen this on "Stuff" this morning?
All English schools to screenAl Gore film.
Praise the Lord, Jesus!!! The NZ Herald, finally prints an article today (7th, Feb, 2007) from the Skeptics side of the debate regarding Global Warming in the perspective section of the paper. Excellent article from Prof. Ross McKittrick whom a current reviewer of the 4th IPCC report and was also a debunker of Prof. Mann's hockey-stick model.
Ross McKittrick critiqued the limitations of mathematical techniques adopted which is similar to what I have done here in this blog-site in the past.
It would be excellent if TV1, TV3 follow suit and get the other guy's (skeptic's) view rather than interviewing Al Gore and no one else to question him.
Post a Comment