95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel
Experts 95 per cent certain 'humans are responsible for global warming'. Well, of course they are. If there is one overriding prerequisite of every new IPCC Assessment report, it's to sound even more scary and urgent and certain than its predecessor. Professor Bob Carter noted this progression in his excellent book Climate: the Counter Consensus:
● First Assessment Report (1990) – "The observed [twentieth century] temperature increase could be largely due…to natural variability."
● Second Assessment Report (1996) – "The balance of the evidence suggests a discernible human influence on climate."
● Third Assessment Report (2001) – "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last fifty years is attributable to human activities."
● Fourth Assessment Report (2007) – "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-twentieth century is very likely [= 90 per cent probable] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
The irony is, of course, that the third, fourth and fifth assessment reports were all produced in a period of rising CO2 levels in which there has been no "global warming" whatsoever. You'd imagine that, had the scientific method been more highly valued by the IPCC, this rather glaring flaw in AGW theory might have been afforded more prominence. But this is not the IPCC Assessment Reports' job. As Christopher Booker and others have often noted, the IPCC's reports are essentially political artefacts rather than scientific ones. This is why some governments – including Germany's and Belgium's – have been manoeuvring behind the scenes to have the new IPCC report "sexed up".
Climate Depot: UN IPCC Report Exposed By Its Own Members as ‘a pure political process’