I would like to highly recommend an extremely good book on the subject of global warming, The Weather Makers.

http://www.bestwebbuys.com/9780871139351

And, I would like to quote a few excellent paragraphs from the book regarding the IPCC. I apologize for the length, but feel this is a highly important point. Please pay special attention to the last sentence.

We must now break from this catalogue of infamy to examine the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC is not an industry or lobby group. It was established in 1988 and is a joint subsidiary body of the United Nations environmental program and World Meteorological Organization. Its workings illustrate how industry uses proxies to slow down, and tone down, the vital work carried out by the group. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC was released in 2001 and is the work of 426 experts whose conclusions were refereed (twice) by 440 reviewers and overseen by 33 editors, before finally being approved by delegates from 100 countries. As you might guess, the report is as dull as dishwater and confines itself to the lowest common denominator.

To understand why this is so, it is important to know the IPCC's modus operandi and membership. It comprises scientists, other experts, and government representatives, and although industry itself is not directly represented, it gains an effective voice through the government appointees of fossil-fuel dependent nations such as Middle Eastern states and the United States. The IPCC's unique structure allows these delegates to exert undue influence, for the organization works by consensus. I met scientists who were IPCC members at the Hadley Centre in late 2004. They described mind-numbing days devoted to arguing about single, seemingly irrelevant words or sentences. Every word in the organizations mammoth reports, they asserted, has been debated, with Saudi Arabia, the United States, and China -- the world's largest oil exporter, oil user, and burner of coal, respectively -- eager to water down wording and to slow progress.

Jeremy Leggett, who was an eyewitness to the negotiations that led to the 2001 report, says that when pressed for reasons in requesting changes, the head of the Saudi Arabian delegation, Mohammed al-Sabban, said, "Saudi Arabia's oil income amounts to ninety-six percent of our total exports. Until there is clearer evidence of human involvement in climate change, we will not agree to what amounts to a tax on oil." Such attitudes are demoralizing for dedicated experts, who know that the fate of our planet is at stake. The outcome is that the pronouncements of the IPCC do not represent mainstream science, but lowest-common-denominator science -- and of course even that is delivered at glacial speed. Yet, in spite of the IPCC's faults, its assessment reports, which are issued every five years, carry weight with the media and government precisely because they represent a consensus view. If the IPCC says something, you had better believe it -- and then allow for the likelihood that things are far worse than it says they are.

ANOTHER interesting and scary analysis of - the analyses - here.

http://littlebloginthebigwoods.blogspot.com/2007/04/not-refrigerators.html

He points out the scientists are probably systematically underestimating the climate problems- a different, but cumulative, bias to the ones pointed out by Scott above- who, incidentally, is absolutely correct.

Philip,

Good points in that link. I had known about the toning down of reports that has to occur when everyone involved must agree to every word (i.e. consensus). However, I had never even considered that the original scientific reports were themselves already deliberately conservative.

I like the sound bite at the end too. However, turning off our refrigerators would not be a realistic solution. I looked to replace mine with a more efficient model, but could not find the vacuum insulated ones that I've read are now available in Europe. They're reputed to be 80% more efficient, a huge improvement over our Energy Star models in the U.S.

Scott - I've actually done some of that kind of calculation, and he's right- it is a conservative process. About unplugging the fridge- it's a long conversation on that blog- he's not really saying everybody should; or will- just that it CAN be done (he has, for 30 years) - and is easier in the city than most people imagine. Doable for some- with a substantial impact, unlike so many "green" recommendations. Some friends have checked their numbers- and the fridge uses 1/5 -1/6 of all the electricity they pay for in a year. That's a chunk.

I don't think I can realistically live without a fridge. I can replace mine with a better model and plan to do so when the vacuum insulated models become available here. The current savings are not worth throwing away the materials and energy to produce a fridge.

But, for anyone thinking about it, at least go with the smallest and best insulated one that meets your needs and it will save a lot.

Here's a tip I found for those of us living in the city. If you have the combination air conditioning/heating units that are common in Manhattan high-rises, the wire connecting to the fan can be disconnected. The hot water heat will still come through and give some heat to the apartment. We've lived through the winter this way, with a warm blanket and wearing fleece around the apartment. The temp was usually around mid to upper 60s. I think the lowest I saw was 64 on a really cold day was 64.

We've also replaced most bulbs with CFLs and don't use the others much. And, we put our TV/DVD/Cable box on a power strip and our cable modem and wifi on another. So, when not in use, we really turn everything off to eliminate vampire power. Our electric use is down about 16% with very minimal changes to our lifestyle.

In fact, the only real changes are wearing a sweater and flipping a switch before watching TV or surfing the web. CFLs provide better light than incandescents, given the color choices. They get rid of the yellow light. So, that's an improvement.