Read here, here, here, here and here. The wide variety of Climategate scandals that have been exposed since November 2009 should make any reasonable politician want to tread very carefully when it comes to the "global warming" fiasco. Indeed, for politicians, the IPCC has become a scandalous joke in serious need of adult supervision, with a total remake.
But it's also important for politicians to remember that the AGW hypothesis and CO2-based climate models, which UN bureaucrats love, represents a science that cannot withstand, nor tolerate the scrutiny that actual empirical evidence affords. It is literally non-sustainable science that actual science facts can't confirm. It's pseudo science, primarily driven by unfortunate UN corruption, malfeasance and politics.
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
Or, "Another new estimate of the overall feedback between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration has been derived from a comprehensive comparison of temperature and CO2 proxy records spanning the past 1000 years. The study in Nature, by David Frank et al., was based on more than 200,000 individual comparisons over the period from 1050 to 1800. Their results imply that the amplification of current global warming by carbon-cycle feedback will be significantly less than commonly suggested. This report goes so far as to suggest ~80% less potential amplification for ongoing global warming."
Or, "A new study authored by Susan Solomon, lead author of the study and a researcher at the NOAA
could explain why atmospheric carbon is not contributing to warming significantly....Water vapor helps trap heat, and is a far the strongest of the major greenhouse gases, contributing 36–72 percent of the greenhouse effect. However more atmospheric carbon has actually decreased water vapor levels. Thus rather than a "doomsday" cycle of runaway warming, Mother Earth appears surprisingly tolerant of carbon, decreasing atmospheric levels of water vapor -- a more effective greenhouse gas -- to compensate." Or, "this demonstrates is that after known, natural modes of climate variability are taken into account, the primary period of supposed CO2-induced warming during the 20th Century – that from about 1970 onward – does not need as strong a CO2-warming effect as is programmed into the average IPCC climate model. This is because the natural variability seen BEFORE 1970 suggests that part of the warming AFTER 1970 is natural!"
Or, "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary [IPCC AR4]. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact....Wasn't the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community - instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda."
