UN Report "Very Likely" Biased

It's taken weeks of effort to hammer out the language for the UN Global Warming report. This is what they've come up with:

PARIS (AP) -- The most authoritative report on climate change is using the strongest wording ever on the source of global warming, saying it is "very likely" caused by humans and already is leading to killer heat waves and stronger hurricanes, delegates who have seen the report said Thursday.

You mean like all those devastating hurricanes that hit the US last year (there weren't any)?What's another word for "very likely"? How about "consensus", and where there's consensus there's not necessarily "science". In addition to tomorrow being Groundhog Day, it will also be UN Report Day which means the scientists will come out of their holes, see their shadows, and predict 10 more years until the Earth burns to a cinder. It will be wall-to-wall on the news tomorrow.

One scientist is not buying it and he's taking a lot of flak for his disbelief in the theology of global warming:

Delaware's state climatologist has found himself in the middle of a political squall after taking skeptical stands on global warming and climate change -- in one case directly contradicting the state's own policy.

David R. Legates, a University of Delaware geography professor, co-wrote a "friend of the court" brief that opposed Delaware's position in a multi-state U.S. Supreme Court case.

In the appeal, state regulators argued that carbon dioxide from new cars should be regulated because of evidence the gas was contributing to rising global temperatures, climate shifts and changes in the environment. The Bush administration and industry critics opposed the demand, saying the dire warnings are unproven.

Enter Legates, a Ph.D. climatologist who received the title of state climatologist in 2005 from Daniel Leathers, now the head of the University of Delaware's geography department.

Legates joined a group of scientists late last year in urging the court to reject the state claims, in a brief filed by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"It is simply impossible to conclude that the net effect of greenhouse gases endangers human health and welfare," the brief said.

He doesn't play well with other climatologists. And there's a follow-up to the story of how dimming the Eiffel Tower for five minutes will save the planet. Turns out it may cause more harm than good:

Some experts said that, while well-intentioned, the lights-out could consume more energy than it would conserve because of a power spike when the lights turn back on _ possibly causing brownouts or even blackouts.

Law of Unintended Consequences 101.