Scientific American published an article summarizing what I’ve
written about for a couple of years: the IPCC’s projections
aren’t 100% correct. Gasp – the horror! But, contrary to what
skeptics think, the direction the IPCC’s reports were wrong are
opposite of what they claim. The projections time and again
underestimated future changes. I think a valid complaint, and
one I’ve made many times myself, is that the IPCC process is too
conservative – it takes too long to get the kind of consensus
they’re looking for. Rapidly changing conditions are not well
handled by the IPCC process. When there is conflicting evidence
of something, the IPCC has tended to say nothing in an effort
not to upset anybody. The good news is there are indications
this is changing. The list: This is the biggest one. Too many
studies focused on moderate emission pathways, when yearly
updates showed our actual emissions were on the high range of
those considered by the IPCC. I actually posted on this two days
ago: CO2 Emissions Continue t