The New York Times reports:
Obviously, the high estimates are even scarier. So it would be nice to hear an explanation from the drafters of this coming report as to why they made decisions that effectively play up the low-end possibilities. But with the report still officially under wraps, they are not speaking publicly. We are thus left wondering whether it is a matter of pure professional judgment — or whether they have been cowed by the attacks of recent years.
“Obviously, the high estimates are even scarier.”
Wait, I thought fearmongering was bad. At least it was when Bush was president.
The NYT is requesting more climate “snuff” films. They don’t like the mainstrean eco-porn.
In other words, the NYT speculates that the IPCC is a political organization that may not accurately represent the science because of political pressure. Funny that.
The whole article still gives undo credibility to the whole IPCC bunch, implying the science is settled. Not even a mention that all this climate variability is natural and predictable by the motion of the planets and activity of the sun. The socialist, communist we know better tone echos through the entire piece. But what else would you expect from the “progressive” Times. .