They're getting desperate in cloud-cuckooland
the following is probably a reaction to this (the Great Global Warming Swindle program on Britain's channel 4)
See the video here

from AP news

Warming Report to warn of coming drought

By Seth Borenstein

WASHINGTON (AP) - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

How do they know these things with such certainty when meteorologists admit that they don’t know how much precipitation falls around the world now, what form it’s in, or even where it falls? And when I say “don’t know”, I mean precisely that. Their estimates are not even in the ballpark. Since this, unlike anthropogenic CO₂,is actually important in determining the climate, you would think they would be a little less dogmatic in theor pronouncements.

But as long as we’re indulging in doom and gloom, let’s not forget the other horrible effects of “global warming: the increased shortage of prostitutes in Bulgaria and all the things on this list.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document by the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change focuses on global warming's effects and is the second in a series of four being issued this year. Written and reviewed by more than 1,000 scientists from dozens of countries, it still must be edited by government officials.

Not scarey enough yet, I guess.

"Things are happening and happening faster than we expected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one of the many co-authors of the new report.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems - change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen - can be blamed on global warming.

Not quite the same thing as their earlier certainty. Don’t worry, they’re back to that in the next paragraph.

For example, the report says North America "has already experienced substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from recent climate extremes," such as hurricanes and wildfires.

Like the devastating 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. I have a feeling these particular examples may disappear from the final draft if anyone with two brain cells sees them. Hurricane frequencies and wildfires are two things which have been shown to have absolutely no relation to warming. Wildfires are an entirely natural phenomenon and the only reasons they have become more destructive in recent years are poor forest management practices and increased building density in the Southwestern US. Hurricane frequency follows a Poisson Distribution, the implications of which are here. They’re not related to surface temperatures, either.

But the present is nothing compared to the future.

[snip] I have left out the list of computer-induced hallucinations which constitute climate prediction these days. Go read them if you want. I'll wait.

This report - considered by some scientists the "emotional heart" of climate change research - focuses on how global warming alters the planet and life here, as opposed to the more science-focused report by the same group last month.

Excuse me. I just spilled coffee all over my computer. “Science focused”???????? I missed the science in the Summary for Policymakers last month. It’s supposed to be in the full report, which hasn’t been released yet. “Emotional heart”?????????????? I don’t dispute that scientists have emotions or that they should express them, but they should confine that sort of thing to their friends and families. I don’t CARE how they feel about global warming. This is science. Stick to the facts. Oh, I forget, they don’t have any.

"This is the story. This is the whole play. This is how it's going to affect people. The science is one thing (and obviously not a thing we agree with – ed.) This is how it affects me, you and the person next door," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

YAY! Somebody has it right! It is just a story, a work of fiction. As far as horror stories go, it’s not nearly up to the standards of Poe or LeFanu, but I would rate it as middling science fiction, maybe on the level of Asimov.

Many - not all - of those effects can be prevented, the report says, if within a generation the world slows down its emissions of carbon dioxide and if the level of greenhouse gases sticking around in the atmosphere stabilizes. (News flash – methane already has been stable for several years- ed.) If that's the case, the report says "most major impacts on human welfare would be avoided; but some major impacts on ecosystems are likely to occur."

The United Nations-organized network of 2,000 scientists was established in 1988 to give regular assessments of the Earth's environment. The document issued last month in Paris concluded that scientists are 90 percent certain that people are the cause of global warming and that warming will continue for centuries.

So we’re supposed to torpedo the world’s economies, including those that are just getting developed in Africa, because these guys and their computer generated fantasies are 90% certain about catastrophic AGW. Would you risk bungee jumping if the operator was just 90% certain that the rope is short enough for you? Or buy a car that the dealer was 90% certain would not explode on your way home? That means that there’s a one in ten chance that it will. There’s a reason why statisticians use the 95% confidence level as the standard by which you can say that some outcome is likely. But I seriously doubt any statisticians were consulted for this particular boondoggle. I don’t think a reputable statistician would have let this pass.

Again, for the sake of humanity, someone PLEASE take the computers away from these people.