"Five days of sometimes tense negotiations ended before dawn with the approval of a 20-page summary of thousands of pages of data and computer projections compiled over six years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year with Al Gore."

Again, the mention of the Nobel Prize as if it were for scientific achievement and not a political prize for people who can be nominated by any sitting politician. The Nobel Peace Prize is not a confirmation of the validity or even the good intentions of those who have won it in the past.

If there were a consensus, why would there be "tense negotiations." You do not perform science by consensus or negotiation. These are w0rds used by mealy-mouthed weasel politicians who believe the world owes them, not only a living, but a superbly comfortable life.

There is no way to adequately summarize thousands of pages of scientific data in only twenty pages. Just the scientific disclaimers alone would fill a large, densely-printed telephone book.

As for computer projections, these are the same old models which rely on inadequate input data, poor assumptions and an extremely limited ability to project the weather beyond ten-to-fourteen days, let alone twenty, thirty, fifty or more years.

Just as the United Nations based their original calculations on the erroneous assumptions that global population growth is linear (wrong) and that everyone will consume energy like Americans (wrong), these computer projections are only the beginning. Go back forty years and similar models were predicting global cooling and possibly a mini-ice age. Neither of which happened.

Coincidently, some of the same scientists were involved and the prescription was exactly the same. We needed to cede our energy policy to a higher authority and allow for a carbon "cap and emissions trading" system. The same old scam that is being perpetrated today.

"The work describes how climate systems are changing and why, the effects they are having on mankind and ecosystems and various scenarios of future impacts, depending on how quickly action is taken to slow the trend."

The truth is that we do not know how climate systems are changing. We can observe the gross effects of any apparent local change -- but that is not globally definitive or predictive of future events. And implicit in the statement about "how quickly action is taken to slow the trend," is the assumption that, once again, we can control the weather at our present state of knowledge. Patently false or we would not be seeing droughts, floods and hurricanes.

"The summary and a longer 'synthesis report' of about 70 pages were expected to be formally adopted after proofreading. They will be released Saturday at a news conference attended by the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki Moon."

Formally adopted by who? A corrupt, impotent, self-serving United Nations who has historically proven that they can't even get disaster relief to needy people without corruption on both ends? A group who sees blatant genocide and fails to take action? Whose troops often run away in the face of danger? Synthesis? You mean like integrating existing reports that fit your agenda into a single summary designed  for the media and dim-witted politicians?   

"'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,' the summary begins, a statement that participants in the meeting said was meant to dispel any skepticism about the reality of climate change."

We are speaking of a one-degree (Celsius) change over thousands of years. Well within the range of systemic measurement error and not terribly indicative of a further continued temperature rise. Ask these all-knowing politicians and their paid scientists exactly why is it that the satellite weather observations (which are much more accurate) do not tally with reported terrestrial observations?

"In a startling and much-debated conclusion, the document warns that human activity risks causing "abrupt or irreversible changes" on Earth, including the widespread extinction of species and a dramatic rise in sea levels before the end of this century."

Again, with all of the purported scientific research, how could the conclusion be "startling?" And they admit to a "much debated" conclusion. So where is the consensus?

"'I think overall it is a good and balanced document,' said Bert Metz, an eminent Dutch scientist and one of the 40 authors of the draft. 'In the end, a lot of people had to compromise.'"

With all due respect to Dr.Metz, he is more of a politician than he is a scientist. He is also biased in favor of the Kyoto Protocol and cannot be trusted to render an impartial opinion in a political environment.

Science is not done by consensus and no one needs to compromise. The facts are what they are. No further explanation is necessary.

"Although it contains no previously unpublished material, the summary pulls together the central elements of three lengthy reports the climate panel released this year. "I think this will be the scientific imperative" propelling action, said Stephanie Tunmore of the Greenpeace environmental group, an observer at the talks."

Wow!  A publicity-generating rehash of previously published material and recommended by a representative of a far-left environmental group that has an avowed socialistic political agenda. 

What can YOU do?

Wait for the report's release and judge it on its scientific merit or lack of provable science.

Read it in a political context. Follow the money and political desire.

Refuse to be panicked into taking precipitous actions which would cede a portion of our sovereign control over our own national destiny to an international community that is openly anti-American and which would do anything to damage our economy. One degree over thousands of years. Results which cannot be measured. Billions of dollars wasted and lives disrupted. For what, a political wet dream of a global government system and economy? As long as people act in their self-interest, the world will always be at conflict as the stronger tries to take something away from the weaker. It is human nature -- and to ignore it is to invite disaster.

With respect to further discussions on scientific consensus, I would like to repeat my closing quote from Marcus Aurelius: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.

And I leave you with my idea of a pun...

The degree of one's emotion varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts - the less you know the hotter you get. -- Bertrand Russell

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Research Links:

Conference releases summary for action on climate change|International Herald Tribune