*
Many will remember how, during the cold January of this year, the media gave great prominence to contained some errors in the fourth report on Climate Change drawn by scientists of the 'International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . Those mistakes unleashed the joy of those small groups who still deny the evidence of changes in climate and still maintain that human behavior has no effect on the climate itself. According to them, well-fed by oil companies and coal lobbies , humans can safely continue to burn fossil fuels that nothing much will change. The few errors of assessment by the IPCC was therefore an opportunity to discredit the entire work of the IPCC.
E 'right to state that the IPCC does not create new literature, but collects the scientific work produced by hundreds of groups of climate scientists around the world and tries to summarize the results in order to offer choices to those responsible for agriculture policies ( policymakers) a scenario that is reliable about the real state of health of the planet. The scientific enterprise is generally too complex and climatology è materia complessa. Anche gli scienziati possono fare errori ma i meccanismi di controllo e le procedure di valutazione interne alle varie comunità scientifiche fanno sì che tali errori, se commessi, vengano alla luce. Insomma il metodo scientifico funziona e, passo dopo passo, permette di comprendere come stiano le cose in natura.
Nello stesso mese di Gennaio, il Parlamento d'Olanda, nazione particolarmente minacciata dal riscaldamento globale e dall'innalzamento dei livelli degli oceani, incaricò il Ministro per l'Ambiente di approfondire la questione. La Ministra Cramer chiese all'Agenzia Olandese per la Protezione Ambientale (PBL) di riesaminare l'affidabilità del lavoro di sintesi dell'IPCC e la correttezza of certain statements relating in particular to the melting of glaciers dell'Hymalaia and the portion of the Netherlands which is actually below sea level.
Now the evaluation of the Dutch is ready and can be read by all . There were some inaccuracies in the preparation of the IPCC report of 2007, but there is no doubt that the central body of the IPCC's analysis on the increase in global average temperatures, which increase levels of the impact on oceans and coastal regions Earth is incorrect. So, in January we looked at the straw that breaks the beam ignoring the classic eye ... a storm in a glass of water.
In this hot summer of 2010 certainly makes good reading and meditating on the ratio of PBL in anticipation of the fifth report of the IPCC. We can continue to live as usual, removing the fact that lifestyles common in this part of the world are unsustainable?
