Final And Most Dire UN Agency Report On Climate Change Released

21 November 2007 - 7:00am

The UN agency assigned to climate change known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared a Nobel Prize with former VP Al Gore has issued its final report - and the news is worse than initially thought. Will the world react in time?

Sponsored Advertisement
Advertise on Planetizen

"The panel’s fourth and final report summarized and integrated the most significant findings of three sections of a climate-science review that were released between January and April. Because the data had not previously been reviewed as a whole, scientists said the synthesized report was more explicit, creating new emphasis and alarm.

The first section of the review had covered climate trends; the second, the world’s ability to adapt to a warming planet; the third, strategies for reducing carbon emissions. With their mission concluded, the hundreds of IPCC scientists spoke more freely than they had previously."

“The sense of urgency when you put these pieces together is new and striking,” said Martin Parry, a British climate expert who was co-chairman of the delegation that wrote the second report. “I’ve come out of this process more pessimistic about the possibilities than I thought I would.”

"Saturday’s synthesis report was reviewed and approved by delegates from 130 nations gathered here this week. But unlike the earlier reviews, in which governments had insisted on changes that diluted the reports’ impact, this time scientists and environmental groups said there had been no major dilution of the data.

For example, this report’s summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperatures could result in a substantive sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia."

"Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s reaction to the report was muted...James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality, declined to say how much warming the administration considered acceptable, saying, “We don’t have a view on that.”

Source: The New York Times, November 18, 2007

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm not buying it

Would this report come from the same organization that either bungled, or (more likely) deliberately inflated the numbers on AIDS victims? I'm willing to wait for science to come to an agreement on the issue. At this point, the cost of making radical changes proposed by the GW industry is greater than the cost of GW itself, assuming for the sake of argument that the report is correct. The report was prepared and issued by politicians. It's not worth the paper it was written on.

Don't buy it then.

At this point, the cost of making radical changes...is greater than the cost of GW itself

That's opposite of what the SPM said.

Best,

D