Upcoming United Nations report: mankind’s impact on global warming has been overestimated

Posted by: ST on December 10, 2006 at 11:13 am

Al Gore and other global warming alarmists won’t be too happy to hear about this:

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.

The panel, however, has lowered predictions of how much sea levels will rise in comparison with its last report in 2001.

Climate change sceptics are expected to seize on the revised figures as evidence that action to combat global warming is less urgent.

Scientists insist that the lower estimates for sea levels and the human impact on global warming are simply a refinement due to better data on how climate works rather than a reduction in the risk posed by global warming.

One leading UK climate scientist, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity surrounding the report before it is published, said: “The bottom line is that the climate is still warming while our greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated, so we are storing up problems for ourselves in the future.”

The IPCC report, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, has been handed to the Government for review before publication.

It warns that carbon dioxide emissions have risen during the past five years by three per cent, well above the 0.4 per cent a year average of the previous two decades. The authors also state that the climate is almost certain to warm by at least 1.5 C during the next 100 years.

Such a rise would be enough to take average summer temperatures in Britain to those seen during the 2003 heatwave, when August temperatures reached a record-breaking 38 C. Unseasonable warmth this year has left many Alpine resorts without snow by the time the ski season started.

Britain can expect more storms of similar ferocity to those that wreaked havoc across the country last week, even bringing a tornado to north-west London.

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.

It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

So, like, does this mean that when I use hairspray I am NOT contributing to global warming after all? Break out da party hats! ;)

Hat tip: AJ Strata


RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • The Political Pit Bull trackbacked with UN: Man's Impact On Global Warming Overestimated
  • Sensible Mom trackbacked with The Inconvenient Cow
  • 14 Responses to “Upcoming United Nations report: mankind’s impact on global warming has been overestimated”


    1. Melissa In Texas says:

      Where’s the aqua net, Sister?
      The daddy of all hairspray!

    2. Tom TB says:

      I love it how the language has changed over the years; first we had the “developed nations” and the “undeveloped world”. Then the former stayed the same, but the latter became “the developing nations”. Now that we are all developed, as far as emitting “greenhouse-gasses” is concerned, which country’s economy does Algore want to damage first?

    3. Steve Skubinna says:

      Why are people stll studying this? I understood the debate to have been declared over. Sorry, new data doesn’t count. Say, are any of Paul Erlich’s books still in print? Now there was a visionary!

    4. Drewsmom says:

      algore needs to bring his ass on down to Alabama. It was 18 degrees last week at night with winds of up to 20 miles an hour. It was bone chillin cold here and this idiot is still out there preaching. What a loser.
      Emissions be damned, I’m still using my hair spray.:d

    5. Jack Deth says:

      I remember in the 1960s, the world was DOOOOOOMED!!! DOOOOMED, I TELLS YA!!!!! to a New Ice Age.

      In the 1970s, I remember the very first inklings of what’s now called “Global Warming”, that promised global starvation and deserts over 70% of the planet.

      The tune’s the same, though the Gloom-and-Doom lyrics have only become more emotional, though completely lacking in the “Fact” Department.

      What ever happened to Inclement Weather?


    6. Marshall Art says:

      “…which country’s economy does Algore want to damage first?” It’ll always be ours. Everything is our fault.

      But don’t start any celebrations just yet. This is a reverse psychology scam-arama. The UN knows that the right has no repect for them, so they’re hoping we’ll insist thry’re wrong again. It’s very devious.

    7. An Inconvenient Sequel

      CUT!…annnnd reframe for lighting…Ok Al, now in this next shot hold the glowing earth ball closer to the side of your face so everyone can see the red makeup as if you’re getting an instant sunburn while you’re saying your lines, and don’t move your head or they’ll see the feed tube for your smoking hair in the camera field….Ok….QUIET ON THE SET! DIRECTORS PACE…ROLL ‘EM…and take 137…Clack!…ACTION!

      – Bang **==

    8. Phil says:

      Wow can Libs every cry and moan when people don’t agree with them. It’s their cry baby tactics.

      This Is Typical For Liberals: How’s this for ‘tolerance’: Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics? :-w

    9. camojack says:

      The terminology du jour is “climate change”; that way you can blame it for anything and everything…sort of a “one size fits all” theory. :-?

      Check out THIS link…

    10. sanity says:

      I liked the report that stated cow “emissions” were worse than CO2 from cars…..

      First thing I thought of after hearing that was….

      Gonna be interesting seeing where they put that muffler on the cow……

    11. ME says:

      Why would the UN publish this? Aren’t they in on the conspiracy against convervative profit?