Response to G&M - Pour more cold water on the IPCC

Response to Globe and Mail's Pour more cold water on the IPCC  -

No matter how bullet proof the IPCC becomes it will not stop people who deny global warming from picking it apart. They don't like what it has to say. Period. But it constitutes the findings of more than 2500 scientists from around the world. And these scientists and those who want to prevent runaway global warming are up against multi-billion dollar industries, such as fossil fuel, eager to brake any action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This means spending a lot of money on PR firms and think tanks to find ways to constantly question the science. The Koch Industries are big spenders in this area -

Keep in mind that there were a few mistakes in the latest IPCC report in a 3000 page document, and those mistakes were quickly amended when they were discovered. If the report was riddled with mistakes, then I'd seriously question it. But just a few? I'd love not to believe in global warming too, but the evidence that it is happening is too compelling.



McNamara, C. (2010). Response to G&M - Pour more cold water on the IPCC . Retrieved from

1 Comment

To add a comment, please Log In.

Cheryl McNamara (Author) wrote: 10-08-2010 11:11:39

This comment is from Dan Williams (Retired Agroclimatologist) I'm glad to see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its procedures have been reviewed by the InterAcademy Council and I'm sure that will help improve its ability to carry out its very essential duties. As a retired Canadian government agroclimatologist, I spent many hours some years ago as a volunteer editing material for the IPCC's 3rd Assessment Report, so I know something about the organization and its limitations. A recent item on says this review of the IPCC "appears mostly sensible and has a lot of useful things to say about improving IPCC processes". I fully agree. We might like to think the way the climate is changing isn't as serious as the IPCC says. The truth seems to be that, apart from an occasional well-publicized error, the situation is actually worse than they say. The fact that the IPCC has to try to conform to the wishes of over 190 different member countries makes it difficult to be as forward-looking as it should be. For example, it seems likely that sea level rise will be much higher than they predicted in their 2007 report because they did not want to go out on a limb using new research they weren't quite sure of yet. In her article "The Unquiet Ice" in the Feb. 2008 "Scientific American", Robin Bell says using current climate models "greatly underestimates the future contribution of the polar ice sheets to sea-level rise". What I've read recently further supports my contention that things are worse, climate-wise, than the IPCC's 2007 report indicated. For example, leading climate change expert James Hansen discusses several reasons why that report probably underestimated future sea level rise ("Storms of My Grandchildren", 2009). James Lovelock, in "The Vanishing Face of Gaia", (2009), provides graphs showing how IPCC estimates of future temperature, sea level, and Arctic ice extent, have all tended to underestimate the impacts of global warming. I think we should follow Tim Flannery's advice with regard to IPCC pronouncements. He said,"If the IPCC says something, you had better believe it--- and then allow for the likelihood that things are far worse than it says they are." ("The Weather Makers", 2005).