Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.“Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.” . For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.


Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com






Web
Canadafreepress.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEO - create one way text link ads to your website for top search engine listings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------















web page

Are you saying then that we should continue burning as much fossil fuels, or perhaps more, or are you simply saying that you don't think natural disasters are caused by global warming and that they won't get worse? Should we cut back on fossil fuels usage, or not?

but doesnt the global warming lead to global cooling by stopping the currents in the oceans and thereby killing the ecosystem down there then up here?

also what is his reasoning for global warming?

what about the poles flipping? could that be the cause?

Human influences on climate

Anthropogenic factors are acts by humans that change the environment and influence climate. The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere) which exerts a cooling effect. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture [1] and deforestation also impact climate.

[edit] Fossil fuels
Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution.
Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution.

Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to more than 370 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before the end of the 21st century. Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100 (see global warming).

[edit] Aerosols

Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulphate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, are believed to exert a cooling influence; see graph.[2] This, together with natural variability, is believed to account for the relative "plateau" in the graph of 20th century temperatures in the middle of the century.

[edit] Land use

Prior to widespread fossil fuel use, humanity's largest impact on local climate is likely to have resulted from land use. Irrigation, deforestation, and agriculture fundamentally change the environment. For example, they change the amount of water going into and out of a given locale. They also may change the local albedo by influencing the ground cover and altering the amount of sunlight that is absorbed. For example, there is evidence to suggest that the climate of Greece and other Mediterranean countries was permanently changed by widespread deforestation between 700 BC and 0 BC (the wood being used for ship-building, construction and fuel), with the result that the modern climate in the region is significantly hotter and drier, and the species of trees that were used for ship-building in the ancient world can no longer be found in the area.

A controversial hypothesis by William Ruddiman called the early anthropocene hypothesis [2] suggests that the rise of agriculture and the accompanying deforestation led to the increases in carbon dioxide and methane during the period 5000–8000 years ago. These increases, which reversed previous declines, may have been responsible for delaying the onset of the next glacial period, according to Ruddimann's overdue-glaciation hypothesis.

[edit] Animal agriculture

According to a 2006 United Nations report, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. In addition to increased CO2 emissions, animal agriculture produces 65% percent of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2)[3].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Statements by organizations

Various prominent bodies have commented on global warming, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). National and international scientific groups have issued statements both detailing and summarizing the current state of scientific knowledge on the earth's climate.

[edit] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[1]

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[1]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[2]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[3]

[edit] Joint science academies’ statement

In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [4], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.

[edit] US National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [5]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [6]

[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [7]

[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [8]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

[edit] Other organizations

Other scientific organizations have made position statements on climate change.

* American Geophysical Union position statement on greenhouse gases and climate change (also endorsed by the American Institute of Physics[9])
* Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001).
* Joint statement on the Science of Climate Change, issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
* A position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London.
* Position Statement on Global Climate Change adopted by the Geological Society of America
* Policy Statement on Climate Variability and Change by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
* Australian Medical Association statement on climate change
* American Chemical Society statement on Global Climate Change

The only major scientific organization that rejects the finding of human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.[10]

[edit] Recent Surveys of scientists

Various surveys have been conducted to determine a scientific consensus on global warming. Only one has been conducted within the last ten years.

[edit] Oreskes, 2004

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

[edit] Older surveys

[edit] Survey of US state climatologists 1997
The neutrality of this section is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

In 1997, the conservative advocacy group Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48 official state climatologists on questions related to climate change [11]. Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% of the climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels."

60% of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15% below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86% said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. By a 39% to 33% margin, more climatologists agreed that "evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period" [12] though the time scale for the next glacial period was not specified.

[edit] Bray and von Storch, 1996

In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survery of climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related matters. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, March 1999 439-455. [13] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000 scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive ability of currently existing models was limited.

The abstract says:

The international consensus was, however, apparent regarding the utility of the knowledge to date: climate science has provided enough knowledge so that the initiation of abatement measures is warranted. However, consensus also existed regarding the current inability to explicitly specify detrimental effects that might result from climate change. This incompatibility between the state of knowledge and the calls for action suggests that, to some degree at least, scientific advice is a product of both scientific knowledge and normative judgment, suggesting a socioscientific construction of the climate change issue.

The survey was extensive, and asked numerous questions on many aspects of climate science, model formulation, and utility, and science/public/policy interactions. To pick out some of the more vital topics, from the body of the paper:

The resulting questionnaire, consisting of 74 questions, was pre-tested in a German institution and after revisions, distributed to a total of 1,000 scientists in North America and Germany... The number of completed returns was as follows: USA 149, Canada 35, and Germany 228, a response rate of approximately 40%...

...With a value of 1 indicating the highest level of belief that predictions are possible and a value of 7 expressing the least faith in the predictive capabilities of the current state of climate science knowledge, the mean of the entire sample of 4.6 for the ability to make reasonable predictions of inter-annual variability tends to indicate that scientists feel that reasonable prediction is not yet a possibility... mean of 4.8 for reasonable predictions of 10 years... mean of 5.2 for periods of 100 years...

...a response of a value of 1 indicates a strong level of agreement with the statement of certainty that global warming is already underway or will occur without modification to human behavior... the mean response for the entire sample was 3.3 indicating a slight tendency towards the position that global warming has indeed been detected and is underway.... Regarding global warming as being a possible future event, there is a higher expression of confidence as indicated by the mean of 2.6.

[edit] Other older surveys of scientists

It should be noted that these surveys are over 15 years old and the state of climate science has changed radically since their time; current beliefs of the scientific community are different as shown in the reviews cited above.

* Global Environmental Change Report, 1990: GECR climate survey shows strong agreement on action, less so on warming. Global Environmental Change Report 2, No. 9, pp. 1-3
* Stewart, T.R., Mumpower, J.L., and Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1992). Scientists' opinions about global climate change: Summary of the results of a survey. NAEP (National Association of Environmental Professionals) Newsletter, 17(2), 6-7.
* A 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society[citation needed]
o Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting states that the report said that 66 % of the scientists said that human-induced global warming was occurring, with 10 % disagreeing and the rest undecided. In a correction Gallup stated: "Most scientists involved in research in this area believe that human-induced global warming is occurring now."
o George Will reported "53 percent do not believe warming has occurred, and another 30 percent are uncertain." (Washington Post, September 3, 1992)
o A 1993 publication by the politically conservative[14] Heartland Institute states: "A Gallup poll conducted on February 13, 1992 of members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society - the two professional societies whose members are most likely to be involved in climate research - found that 18 percent thought some global warming had occurred, 33 percent said insufficient information existed to tell, and 49 percent believed no warming had taken place."[15]

[edit] Scientists opposing consensus opinions

Main article: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

[edit] Alleged US governmental interference in reporting

According to an Associated Press release of 30 January 2007 [16]:

"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.

"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete references to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."

[edit] See also

* Attribution of recent climate change
* Global warming controversy

[edit] Citations

1. ^ "Warming 'very likely' human-made", BBC News, BBC, 2007-02-01. Retrieved on 2007-02-01.
2. ^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". Science 306 (5702): 1686. DOI:10.1126/science.1103618. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)

[edit] External links

* Sherwood Rowland (Nobel Laureate for work on ozone depletion) gives his opinion on climate change 2006 Freeview video provided by the Vega Science Trust.
* Newer reports on EPA website
* Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, National Academy of Sciences
* Joint Science Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change, National Academy of Sciences
* Climate change special: State of denial New Scientist 4 November 2006
* The Denial Machine CBC Television 15 November 2006


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Rather than post the exact same thing in two places, let's have this debate back in the terror forum.

That's where I'm currently kicking your "it's-ok-everyone-just-keep-driving-around in-your-petrolium-guzzling-SUV's, keep-giving-exxon-50-billion-per-year, the-scientists-are-lying-to-you-for-a-lark" ass at the moment.

"Yeah and when you plug your computer into the wall the electricity comes from squirrels on a wheel."

One day it will come from wind, wave and sun. You can either be a part of that change, or you can continue to be a shill for the oil barons, posting temperature charts with the last few years missing to hide the obvious problem.

Scientists Offered Cash by ExxonMobil to Dispute Climate Study
By Ian
Sample

The Guardian UK - Friday 02 February 2007
original:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html (Copy and paste entire link into browser.)



Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby
group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a
major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an
ExxonMobil-funded think tank with close links to the Bush
administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the
shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also
offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely
regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science.
It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to
succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012.
World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20
of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee
Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's
board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere,
attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent
and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the
analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the
limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast
doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming.
"It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort
science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review
undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the
public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to
take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who
confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists
and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that
would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says
that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group
is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't
think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the
report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if
some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we
should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a
professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the
Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It
says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet,
and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C
this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's
most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's
leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a
comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the
issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before,
that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that
'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the
urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst
impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal
minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a
thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa
Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their
campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost
on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of
cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will
launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among
its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human
activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs
attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is
no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.