Too much uncertainty in the IPCC Climate Change Reports

The promoters of the global warming and climate change movement keep telling us how certain and unequivocal the science is. Their certainty has always aroused my suspicions, but not enough to spend any time seriously thinking about it. The release of Al Gore's "documentary" An Inconvenient Truth was the straw that broke this camel's back. Previously, I was always willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt and never really questioned global warming and climate change, but the overall level of unbelievability of Al's movie absolutely convinced me to give up that pretense and challenge the so-called "science" publicly. The crazy thing is that I actually do approve of a good portion of the approaches to mitigate global warming, but the slick, political-social "packaging" of the whole global warming/climate change "movement" feels so non-credible.

If the so-called "science" is really so certain as the promoters claim, why would the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) need an entire document devoted exclusively to providing "guidance" on "addressing uncertainties"?

What uncertainties???

Haven't Al, et al, assured us that this "science" is absolutely certain and absolutely "beyond challenge"?

Or, have Al, et al, deeply misled us?

The uncertainty document, entitled "Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties" may only be four pages long, but requires eight formal "references".

One reference is listed as "IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and of Options." Workshop? They needed to hold an entire workshop? Why, if the science for global warming and climate change is "beyond challenge"?

Another reference is listed as "Representing and Communicating Deep Uncertainty in Climate Change Assessments." What? Deep Uncertainty?? You have to be kidding me. Why on earth would "deep uncertainty" be even remotely relevant to a field where the "science" is so "certain" that it is "beyond challenge"?

Another reference is listed as "Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms." What vague meanings? Why should anything in a discussion of the "science" underlying global warming and climate change have a "vague meaning"?

The final reference is listed as "Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment." Duh!!! What uncertainty needs to be communicated if the "science" underlying global warming and climate change is so "certain" and "beyond challenge"?

Don't get me wrong. I am well aware that all science is filled with uncertainties. And I fully recognize that any scientific study of any aspect of climate is going to be chock full of uncertainty. And I absolutely recognize that forecasts about the future, especially decades from now, of any system, especially one as complex as our environment is almost all uncertainty. But, the fact remains that the promoters of the global warming and climate change movement have intentionally distorted whatever scientific basis there might be and persist in making wild and unjustified claims of achieving levels of certainty that are "beyond challenge" so as to make a mockery of any actual science mis-used to justify the claims of their political and social movement.

By all means, let us all reduce our "carbon footprint", but let's do it because it makes simple, economic sense, not because of a trumped-up so-called "crisis."

-- Jack Krupansky