The report is due … “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27, 2013.
With CO2 still rising, you would think???
The report, which cites thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored, also found that “no empirical evidence exists to substantiate the claim that 2°C of warming presents a threat to planetary ecologies or environments” and no convincing case can be made that “a warming will be more economically costly than an equivalent cooling.” The U.N.’s panel is scheduled to release its next report next month.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced the report, is described as “an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change.” Unlike the “United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution,” NIPCC “has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency” and is “wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.”
The report blows away the Warmist hysteria regarding sea rise, temperature rise, melting glaciers, “extreme” weather, the Arctic, and every other bit of doom and gloom.
“We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emissions,” the authors write. “In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.”
I’d highly recommend reading at least the Summary For Policymakers. The study focuses on actual observable data, rather than computer models, micro-reconstructions, and “normalized” data. Nor does it completely dismiss what Mankind does, but notes that our works are miniscule in comparison to natural variability.
*Note: the attached graphic is not from the report, but one that has been out that highlights the difference between the Warmist computer models and real world observations.