Sean if you haven't, you really need to read Bjorn Lumborgs The Skeptical Environmentalist. He takes studies like this head on, and uses their own data against them to show how they'll cherry pick it to overstate the problem.<br><br>The reason I like him is because he was a member of Greenpeace (and still is afaik) who started the project to prove wrong a University of Maryland scientist who stated the state of the world is not nearly as bad as members of these panels would like you to believe. This really pissed Lumborg off, who was a real "tree hugging nut" you might say. But as he did his research - which is quite exhaustive, for a 500 page book he's got around 3900 detailed footnotes - he found out the guy from UM was actually correct.<br><br>The problem I find with any panel put together by the UN is that it's going to be political and have an agenda that the UN wishes to push from the very start. Scientists on these panels have openly admitted after Lumborgs book that they cherry pick data to massage the results to seem worse than the overall data would show. They do it not only to bring attention to their cause, but to also salvage and increase their funding. Sounds like Bush and WMD's :)<br><br>But perhaps the thing I like best about Lumborg is that nowhere in his book does he state that things are honky dory. He only asks people to take this stuff with a huge grain of salt because there is so much division between scientists over the severity of the problem and nobody seems to care to intelligently discuss things. Indeed he was crucified by the Danish science ministry and sued him for the book.. but later courts vindicated him.<br><br>Anyway he takes their data which they claim show the Earth is about to die and shows how the environment has acutally been slightly improving over the last decade or so, and how our current society is sustainable for the forseeable future. He also continuously states how he thinks it's a mistake to throw our resources at global warming, instead he thinks it'd be better to slightly retool our ways and prepare the poorer countries of the world for what's going to happen anyway. <br><br>I must say I think his approach is logical and well thought out. The Kyoto treaty is flawed, and at it's best only hopes to push effects of global warming back a scant 5 to 6 years. The money Kyoto will cost the countries of the world could be better spent preparing the poorer countries of the world to deal with the problems they'll face in the future.<br><br>

Hey I'm an F'n Jerk!