Link to an article by Lorne Gunter mentioned by xelasnave is here (apologies for split URL):
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/c...l?id=34b2c4eb-
1788-4242-a04d-eaa286afa9c7&p=2
Here's an extract highlighting what's not being reported in the papers:
“ … the United Nations' global warming spin factory will switch into high gear with the release of the (IPCC’s) latest report.
Actually, the spin will come mostly in the Summary for Policy Makers.
Expect the summary -- which is not written by scientists, but by politicians and activists -- to be highly alarmist. It will almost certainly insist that since the last report in 2001, proof of a coming man-made climate disaster has mounted and the scientific consensus has grown stronger.
It will infer the only solution is a massive remaking of industrialized society presided over by international bureaucrats and environmentalists.
Even the scientific papers in the IPCC report will have been doctored a bit. In past versions, scientists who have refused to swallow whole the orthodoxy that Earth is going to hell … have been dropped from the committees that write and review the IPCC report's individual chapters.
Their doubts, no matter how substantial and well-documented -- have been expunged from the final drafts.
You've no doubt heard there is an international scientific consensus that the planet is warming, that the warming will likely be catastrophic and it is being caused by human-produced emissions. The IPCC shows how this vaunted consensus is reached, not by getting all scientists to agree, but by defaming or ignoring those with opinions and research cast doubt on the dogma.
That's not science, it's shunning, the ancient religious punishment for heretics.
If you saw Al Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, you may be familiar with Naomi Oreskes, the University of California social scientist who claimed to have found 100% agreement among climate scientists. In a much-quoted article in Science magazine, Ms. Oreskes claimed that of the 928 scientific paper's whose abstracts she reviewed, not a single one disagreed with or raised objections to the man-made warming theory.
Not reported though -- because it doesn't reinforce the climate catechism -- was a review of Ms. Oreskes' report by British scientist Benny Peiser. He found that Ms. Oreskes had failed to examine nearly 11,000 other climate reports that may or may not have supported her conclusion. And even among the 928 she carefully selected, only 2% "wholly endorsed the view that human activity is driving global warming," while several "actually opposed that conclusion," even though Ms. Oreskes claimed their support, too.
Remember headlines late last year such as "Greenhouse gases help make 2006 warmest year ever"? What didn't get reported was the fact those doom-laden records were based on only the first 11 months of last year. When the temperatures for December were added to the mix last week, 2006 turned out to be the coolest year in the past five.”