This (the political nature of the document) raises legitimate doubts about the scientific credibility of the IPCC's conclusions. The "cleansing" of the report -- and the attendant delay in publication -- is also feeding wild speculation about climate catastrophes, with many leaks to compliant newspapers.

Compared to earlier reports, the "Fourth Assessment" is really quite sober, perhaps because a real scientist less given to ideology heads the effort. The summary projects slightly lower temperature increases than previous reports, for example. Also, the last report, in 2001, featured the Hockeystick, a graph that purportedly illustrated that the 20th century was "unusually warm." The IPCC ignores contrary evidence.

Its underlying science was flawed by incorrect statistics, and apparently the IPCC now implicitly agrees, for the Hockeystick does not appear in the summary.

The IPCC's estimates for sea-level rise are about half of previous values given. The IPCC is under attack by extremist scientists who think it is too optimistic and that the numbers should be more catastrophic. NASA scientist Jim Hansen's sea-level value is about 20 times higher than that of the IPCC. I suppose that makes him, as well as Al Gore, a climate "contrarian."

Notwithstanding these more restrained points, the IPCC fails to provide any real support for its key conclusion: "It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas increases caused most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century." The IPCC ignores contrary evidence The whole question of anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming is central to setting any policy of climate mitigation and therefore warrants closer examination.

A commonly cited "proof" for human-caused global warming claims there is a scientific consensus. This claim is based mainly on a flawed essay by Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, which appeared in the journal Science in December 2004. But even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that's not how science works. Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or Einstein.

Another so-called "proof" offered for human-caused global warming is that glaciers are melting and Arctic sea-ice is disappearing. But this is a necessary consequence of warming and says nothing about its cause. Any warming -- whether man-made or natural -- will melt ice. Confusing cause and effect is faulty logic, not proof.

Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. This is true, but correlation is never proof of causation. In Europe, the birth rate is decreasing and so is the number of storks. Does this correlation prove that storks bring babies? Besides, the climate cooled for much of the 20th century, between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon dioxide was increasing rapidly.

Well, what about some 20 greenhouse climate models, all predicting warming -- all the way to 11.5 C from as low as 1.4 C, for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Yet no one can tell us which of these models is correct -- if any. And none of these models can explain why the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975 -- without special assumptions. In any case, model results are never evidence. Only actual observations count.

Crucially, greenhouse models cannot explain the observed patterns of warming -- temperature trends at different latitudes and altitudes. These data, published in a U.S. government scientific report in May 2006, lead us to conclude that the human contribution is not significant. Most of current warming must therefore stem from natural causes. It may well be part of an unstoppable solar-driven 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that's been documented in ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, and so forth -- going back a million years.

If indeed most of current warming is natural rather than from greenhouse gases, there is little point in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. Further, carbon dioxide is not an atmospheric pollutant. Programs and policies for carbon dioxide control should therefore be scrapped -- including uneconomic alternative energy sources, carbon-sequestration efforts, and costly emission-trading schemes. All of these waste money and squander scarce resources, without in any way affecting the atmosphere or climate. Humans have adapted to major climate changes in the past, and we should have no problem doing so in the future.

So on the one hand we have the "distinquished scientists" agreeing on a negotiated position that the sky is falling, or some semblance thereof, and on the other hand it may not be falling very fast and if it is we can live with it anyway, and besides, there's nothing we can do about it in the first place. This of course brings up the question that if it is indeed the case that we can't do anything about it, to what extent, if any, is climate change really subject, in a significant way, to what man has done and does or does not do - in other words, is climate change really man made?

Inasmuch as I'm an immunopharmacologist and not a climatologist I'll leave the evidence of one side or the other to the climatologists, but not the politicians. As for how we should look at the report and what we should do about it, I'm all for assuming a "what if the report is right" stance and take what actions that we can all 'reasonably' take, and at the same time prepare ourselves to "live with it," in a rational and reasonable manner. Notice I used the words rational and reasonable.

Regarding the latter stance, Blue Crab Boulevard has a nice "living with it" piece that suggests we take a look at the reality of the situation instead of the extremist positions and points to Patrick Michaels article in today's USA Today.

The increasingly hysterical warnings about global warning continue to take on an almost surreal air. Global warming being blamed for gingerbread houses collapsing in Sweden; grim warnings of enormously overweight moose, the list of dire predictions becomes sillier with each passing day. With the release of the latest news that man is "likely" involved in the warming trend and that the trend , it is about time to take a look at the reality of the situation instead of the extremist positions, ...

... Despite what many people insist, the evidence of how much of global warming is tied to human activity is marginal at best. There are strong arguments that a lot of the warming trend is natural and has nothing to do with man at all. But even if we start with a presumption that this trend will continue no matter what we do in the short run, then it is time to look at dealing with the changes intelligently. Not by throwing money away.

You'll find both Blue Crab Boulevard's and the USA Today pieces to be worthy reads.

Other coverage: Outside the Beltway and Democrats.com and State of the Day (why is it that the Dems just can't help themselves - there's absolutely nothing that they can't politicize. If it's not the evil Joooz it's the evil corporations or administration. Oh well, another day in lala land. We need Joe Friday back with just the facts)

Update: In Critics seek to deflate hype surrounding global warming report we hear another argument that the United Nations report on global warming was not approved by scientists but rather by politically motivated U.N. bureaucrats, and assigns an agenda behind it:

The report released by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says it is "very likely" the burning of fossil fuels by humans is linked to rising temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather. Marc Morano with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee says while the U.N. may claim the summary speaks for 2,500 scientists, it is written by U.N. political delegates.

Morano contends scientists have to alter their work to meet the U.N.'s political agenda as laid out in the summary. He notes that in 2000, French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto Protocol the first step to "authentic global governance."

"So the U.N. has that agenda," Morano contends. "[It] wants to be able to tax, regulate, and essentially be an international governing body over the developed world, particularly the United States. This is seen by many as an opportunity to get their hands on United States taxpayer wealth."

Morano says all the U.N. has to make its dire predictions are unproven computer models of the future. According to Morano, "You can't prove a prediction wrong today of 2100 or 2050."

And according to the Committee aide, the U.N. represents "all scientists" the same way labor unions in America represent "all workers" - that is, they don't.