'Climate Panel Says Emissions Are Nearing Upper Limit'

That's because they consciously avoided the subject.

AP:

 

For a bunch of very smart people, some of you are shockingly unaware of any information that doesn't fit your world view.

I mean, seriously, you had no idea the IPCC has been struggling with how to explain the last 15 years?

If so, then you are uninformed on the issue.

 

The inability to differentiate between information and knowledge is a big problem here.
It doesn't reflect intelligence.

 

And the difference between knowledge and wisdom is even greater. I once heard it put this way: Knowledge is knowing that tomato is a fruit, not a vegetable; Wisdom is knowing not to put tomato in a fruit salad.

 

Socrates once asked the Delphi oracle who the wisest man in the world was.
The oracle responded it was the man who speaks only of what he knows.
A lot of people on this site could benefit from that acknowledgment.

 

Unedited...

By KARL RITTER
The Associated Press
STOCKHOLM — Scientists now believe it's "extremely likely" that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures, an international climate panel said Friday.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used its strongest language yet in a report on the causes of climate change, prompting calls for global action to control emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

"If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is. If ever there were an issue that demanded greater cooperation, partnership, and committed diplomacy, this is it," said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

The IPCC, which has 195 member countries, adopted the report Friday after all-night talks at a meeting in Stockholm.

In its previous assessment, in 2007, the U.N.-sponsored panel said it was "very likely" that global warming was due to human activity, particularly the CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

The change means that scientists have moved from being 90 percent sure to 95 percent — about the same degree of certainty they have that smoking kills.

"At 90 percent it means there is a 10 percent probability that it's not entirely correct," said Chris Field, Carnegie Institution scientist who is a leader in the IPCC but wasn't involved in the report released Friday. "And now that's 5 percent. So it's a doubling of our confidence. That's actually a consequential change in our level of understanding."

One of the most controversial subjects in the report was how to deal with what appears to be a slowdown in warming if you look at temperature data for the past 15 years. Climate skeptics say this "hiatus" casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change, even though the past decade was the warmest on record.

Many governments had objections over how the issue was treated in earlier drafts and some had called for it to be deleted altogether.
In the end, the IPCC made only a brief mention of the issue in the summary for policymakers, stressing that short-term records are sensitive to natural variability and don't in general reflect long-term trends.

"An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.

 

You get dumber every day.

We were discussing a specific question. Is there a reason I needed to post the portion you posted to address that question?

And, I know this is hard for you, and we've been over it before, but it's not an "edit" if I don't choose to post as entire article.

 

Could that lead possibly have more weasel words?

"now believe" -- but they certainly don't know.

"extremely likely" -- well, we're guessing on this, but who really knows?

And then, here's the grand finale ... "a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures " -- uh, that "recent plateau" makes it quite clear that the "long-term trend" is neither long-term nor a trend. In other words, "things didn't turn out as we said they would, but please just ignore that fact."

And that's just the first sentence.

 

I do think it's interesting how two different versions of the same AP story read.

You have this quote:

vs. this one:

Why the lack of details in one version.

Who in the U.S government urged them to alter the report? What are their credentials.

Liberals worried that Republicans were politicizing science, but here we see governments pushing scientists to alter a report, in part because it, "would provide ammunition for skeptics".

LOL. You can't make this stuff up.

 

Taking out graphs is editing. And the first graphs of a story are considered the most important of a story by the writer and the person the edited it.

 

They could stop reading at any time

Yes Devil, when you post, this is true.