# UN Sees Faster Global Warming - will GW 'Global Warming' Bush care? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2001, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-sees-faster-global-warming-will-gw-global-warming-bush-care/51276 "2001-01-22T16:25:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-sees-faster-global-warming-will-gw-global-warming-bush-care/51276/61 "2001-07-14T15:21:36Z")
**squeegee:** \*Can anyone provide the original cite, pls? I mean, the actual study that surveys the climate scientists? \* I don’t think that the idea of “consensus” on global warming among the vast majority of climate scientists is based on one particular poll. But [here](http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pubs/FactSheets/d_GWFact.html) are some indicators of the growth to near-unanimity over the past several years of support for the idea of anthropogenic global warming: > [@](#): > > 1990: An appeal signed by 49 Nobel prize winners and 700 members of the NAS states, “There is broad agreement within the scientific community that amplification of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by the buildup of various gases introduced by human activity has the potential to produce dramatic changes in climate … Only by taking action now can we insure that future generations will not be put at risk.” > > - The scientific working group of the IPCC, drawing on 170 scientists from 25 countries, publishes a report stating that human activity increasing greenhouse gas emissions “will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface.” […] > > - 747 participants from 116 countries take part in the Second World Climate Conference. The conference statement reports that “a clear scientific consensus has emerged on estimates of the range of global warming which can be expected during the 21st century. […]” > > 2001: The IPCC issues its Third Assessment Report stating that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. […] > > - The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, at request of President George W. Bush, issues report analyzing climate science. NAS finds that "temperatures are in fact rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities NAS reports that IPCC’s findings are “robust” and its work is “admirable.” Certainly, this doesn’t mean that all climate scientists are agreed about exactly how much global warming is happening and exactly what the effects will be. There have been a number of polls that illustrate these disagreements on such issues as whether there has already been a significant amount of anthropogenic global warming, whether there could be a “runaway” greenhouse effect, etc. But based on the views of the leading scientists from around the world who make up the IPCC, and the vast amount of peer-reviewed research that they cite in support of their conclusions, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to speak of a “scientific consensus” on the core proposition that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and might cause serious environmental and economic problems. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-sees-faster-global-warming-will-gw-global-warming-bush-care/51276/62 "2001-07-14T21:34:22Z")
squeegee, Claims that the IPCC reports, written by the leading scientists in the global scientific community, are somehow biased and misleading is the sort of propaganda that has been put out by those with ulterior motives. If you want to learn about how the IPCC process works, you can go to the IPCC website. The purpose of the IPCC is to provide a review and assessment of the current state of peer-reviewed research on global warming. Noone claims the process is perfect and there are balances which must be met (including the balances of having such a report approved by nations such as the OPEC oil producing countries!), but the claims of any real bias in the IPCC reports have not been borne out. By the way, the National Academy of Sciences study that reported to Bush specifically addressed the question of whether the IPCC reports were somehow misleading. The specific question was whether the summaries accurately reflected the full contents of the report. Their conclusion was that the summaries do essentially reflect the full contents, albeit they are summaries and thus they necessarily leave out some of the details. (It is kind of hard to write a summary if you are forced to include all the details!) One small criticism they did have along these lines is that the summary for policymakers in the IPCC Working Group 1 report placed less emphasis than they thought was best on explaining the basis of the scientific uncertainties and caveats: > [@](#): > > The IPCC WGI Summary for Policymakers (SPM) serves an obviously different purpose than the scientific working group reports. When one is condensing 1,000 pages into 20 pages with a different purpose in mind, we would expect the text to contain some modifications. After analysis, the committee finds that the conclusions presented in the SPM and the Technical Summary (TS) are consistent with the main body of the report. There are, however, differences. The primary differences reflect the manner in which uncertainties are communicated in the SPM. The SPM frequently uses terms (e.g., likely, very likely, unlikely) that convey levels of uncertainty; however, the text less frequently includes either their basis or caveats. This difference is perhaps understandable in terms of a process in which the SPM attempts to underline the major areas of concern associated with a human-induced climate change. However, a thorough understanding of the uncertainties is essential to the development of good policy decisions. You can read the NAS press release (with a link to the full report) at [http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/(ByDocID)/854F0F191BB3912385256A6300697720?OpenDocument](http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/(ByDocID)/854F0F191BB3912385256A6300697720?OpenDocument) [Yes, I know, this link doesn’t work directly…but if you click on it and then subsequently edit out the space it puts in the word “Document” (which I can’t get it to remove), you’ll get there.] ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-sees-faster-global-warming-will-gw-global-warming-bush-care/51276/63 "2001-07-14T21:47:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by squeegee \* > You appear to be changing the subject, at least if you’re responding to my post. > > My point was that it is very disturbing, at least to me, that the IPCC report may show unbiased reporting of the temperature data. This is unconscionable, especially with so important a topic. Hope that you find the post directly above to be more on-topic. However, what I was responding to in my 7/9/2001 post was the idea you expressed (or at least that I felt was implied) that the solution is to continue to do more research but not take any action yet [see you 7/9/2001 11:34 pm post]. I think that is foolhardy because the evidence on global warming is now strong enough to warrant prudent measures to try to move us onto a new track in regards to our greenhouse emissions. (Not to mention the fact that in the very unlikely event that the danger of global warming does not hold up under further research, actions taken to reduce emissions…such as reducing the subsidization leading to woefully inefficient energy consumption…are still justifiable). ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2001, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-sees-faster-global-warming-will-gw-global-warming-bush-care/51276/64 "2001-07-15T16:26:00Z")
Waiting for the research to finish could only be suggested by someone with little knowledge of science. Science never finishes research. When’s the last time you read a journal article that didn’t advocate more study? When’s the last time such an article claimed to answer the last remaining questions in a particular field? Never, that’s when. The question to ask is do we know enough now to have a fairly good idea what’s going on. Most climatoligists believe so (see the cites posted above), and that’s pretty much the final authority. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2001, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-sees-faster-global-warming-will-gw-global-warming-bush-care/51276/65 "2001-07-16T17:10:13Z")
Um, Okay: so more research is _ **not** _ needed ?? Wow, it’s great that we completely understand all present and past aspects of global climate change! I guess all those climate scientists can go home now, or find gainful employment in the fast food industry. :rolleyes: Please reread what I said, which was essentially: - Yes, global warming appears to be happening - There are just _huge_ inconsistencies in the present understanding of past climate events. - Gosh, this is an important issue! - So we need to keep researching and find out what’s really going on. - Especially how much global warming is human-caused ( or “anthropogenic”, $5 to Kimstu for that word) v. cyclical events. – Surely there is some of both happening! I don’t think anyone can reasonably dispute that there is a great deal that is not understood about this issue. I do not advocate doing _nothing_ – Kyoto probably _is_ a reasonable set of steps to be taking. I agree, we should be cautious, there’s a great deal at stake. However, arguing that we know _for certain_ what has happened in the past and will happen in the future regarding global warming, and that everyone agrees this is so, is poppycock! There seems to be a troubling subtext in this thread as well: anyone who questions _any aspect_ of the IPCC report or the anthropogenic v. cyclic issue of GW must obviously be a “Global Warming Naysayer” (with the same respect due a Holocaust denier), and therefore allied with energy industry or tragically mislead by those who are. Please. Kimstu: Thank you for the quotes on the consensus issue. I don’t think you had meant to be misleading, but I maintain that saying “accepted by the vast majority of climate scientists” is indeed misleading. “Many prominent scientists agree on this issue”, or “there is a growing consensus” would surely be more accurate than a hyperbolic “vast majority”. I’m probably nitpicking, but it seems like an important distinction to me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-sees-faster-global-warming-will-gw-global-warming-bush-care/51276.md?page=3)