Climategate was investigated by whom? and determined not to be relevant to the ongoing debate about global warming by whom?
[quote]British science academy publishes climate change guide
by Staff Writers
London (AFP) Sept 30, 2010
Britain’s national science academy released a new guide on climate change Thursday, setting out what is known and what remains unclear after a series of scandals about global warming research. The Royal Society guide says there is “strong evidence” that changes in the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere caused by human activity – notably a rise in carbon dioxide – are the dominant cause of recent global warming.
But it also outlines the debates that continue to rage, including over the effect of variations in the energy emitted by the Sun, and says several areas are not well understood, including how the ice sheets on Greenland and Western Antarctica are melting.
Despite the “absence of perfect knowledge”, however, it says world governments must act, warning: “The potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made.”
A previous Royal Society guide, published in 2007, was organised as a point-by-point rebuttal of the “misleading” arguments about climate change, including that computer models are unreliable.
According to the BBC, this was updated partly as a result of complaints by 43 of the society’s members, who were concerned it was too strident.
The new 19-page guide was published after a series of rows dented the credibility of established climate science.
The UN climate change panel which won a Nobel prize after a landmark 2007 report into global warming admitted it had exaggerated the speed at which Himalayan glaciers were melting, while a leading British research centre was accused of manipulating its data, although it strongly denied this.
“Much of the public debate on climate change is polarised at present, which can make it difficult to get a good overview of the science,” said John Pethica, the Royal Society’s vice-president who helped compile the guide.
“This guide explains where the science is clear and established, and also where it is less certain.”
The guide, which can be found at royalsociety.org, has been prepared by leading international scientists, most of them fellows of the society, and is based on extensive published works.[/quote]
Little bit of backtracking here as well. Why? How should we “view” this? According to the full report, we are not in a position to determine sea level increases or final temperatures. This major backtrack was not included in the above media report but it is in the report, itself. Wonder why the media did not print what would be the most newsworthy of the new stance?
Take a gander at the sea level rise since 1880 and then over thousands of years at this site:
I post this just to provide a sense of the magnitude or lack thereof in much of what we are seeing today. Also, given that it has been on a stready progression since 1880 when we came out of the mini Ice Age, one wonders where the CO2 emissions were and how they were causing these sea level rises when most “scientists” state that this has stepped up since the 1950s. What then was causing these sea level rises from 1880 to 1950? and could not the same be causing the rise since 1950?