This week we鈥檙e to get an update from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on how much closer we are to destroying the planet we inhabit since the panel鈥檚 last assessment in 2007.
The reported indications are that the IPCC scientists are even more sure than they were last time that human activities have caused more than half the global warming observed since the 1950s 鈥� so sure that they鈥檝e substituted their 鈥渧ery likely鈥� in 2007 for 鈥渆xtremely likely鈥� in their latest assessment, according to leaked documents.
Now, I鈥檝e been tracking the minimum temperatures around here for almost a year, and they鈥檝e been consistently well above normal. It鈥檚 clear 鈥� to me, anyway 鈥� that the world鈥檚 getting hotter.
But there鈥檚 a funny thing about global warming: From 1998 to 2012 the rate of warming was about half of what it was since 1951. If the scientists on the intergovernmental panel were tempted to ignore this little detail, they can鈥檛.
Most governments around the globe have been persuaded that the threat of global warming is real, if only because their voting citizens are convinced it is 鈥� even if they鈥檙e not prepared to do as much as they have to do to combat it.
So as the leaked documents reveal, several national governments reviewing the draft of this week鈥檚 report have been putting pressure on the scientists to explain the reduced rate of warming to curb the enthusiasm of climate-change skeptics 鈥� and, probably, stop them looking like dupes of Al Gore and the Henny Pennies of the environmental lobby.
Germany wanted the reference to the warming slowdown deleted from the final report, arguing that a 14-year trend is misleading to track changes that must have been going on since before thermometers were invented.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as the start of the lull in surface warming because that was a particularly warm year. Using 1999 or 2000 as a beginning would give a more upward curve 鈥� sure, like that laughable hockey-stick graph manufactured for the IPCC鈥檚 third assessment report in 2001?
The U.S. government identified the 鈥渓eading hypothesis鈥� for the cooling of the warming trend that it wants included in the final report: the absorption of heat in the ocean depths. This, of course, raises the question of how much heat the ocean can take.
I have another question: Why are governments presuming to tell the world body of scientists what they should tell the public? Maybe Prime Minister Stephen Harper鈥檚 muzzling of federal scientists 鈥� a cause of cross-country rallies of protest last Monday 鈥� is more honest.
The Union of Concerned Scientists website explains government involvement in IPCC reports this way: Since the report is meant to 鈥渋nform鈥� international political negotiations on climate issues, governments 鈥渁s the key stakeholders in these negotiations play an essential role in the report鈥檚 production.鈥�
They propose authors and contributors participate in the review process and 鈥渉elp reach a consensus鈥� on its major findings.
鈥淭his can result 鈥� in language that is sometimes weaker than it otherwise might be,鈥� say the concerned scientists, but at least governments can鈥檛 easily dismiss reports that they鈥檝e helped 鈥渟hape.鈥�
There鈥檚 a lot of conspiracy theory in global-warming denial already, so I hope I haven鈥檛 done a mischief in explaining this. I respect, still, the integrity of scientists engaged on the panel鈥檚 work. I think, still, that their science is 鈥渞obust,鈥� as they like to say, even if a lot of it has to be educated supposition.
As educated supposition goes, astrobiologists at the University of East Anglia take the prize. They鈥檝e predicted that Earth will be habitable only for another 1.75 billion years or thereabouts.
Between then and 3.25 billion years in the future, our planet will be a 鈥渉ot zone鈥� because of the sun, they say, and temperatures will be so high that the seas will evaporate and all life forms will face 鈥渃atastrophic and terminal extinction.鈥�
Human beings will be among the first to go, because they can鈥檛 stand even small increases in temperature, increases that they, by their selfish follies, are contributing to.
The IPCC won鈥檛 mention this, of course. In a way, it makes their message pretty pointless.
