Modellers are fond of the expression garbage in, garbage out . You do not need a doctorate to gain the impression that, if so little is known about crucial mechanisms for climate phenomena, the results of the models used cannot possibly be in line with reality. So, why the scaremongering?

One might even wonder whether the policy-makers for whom this summary was intended have actually read it. After all, in not a single policy area should such a weak analysis have led to such far-reaching economic measures as those agreed on at the climate change conference held in Marrakech in October 2001 even if they are not yet binding ^[3]. But, in another respect, IPCC s scientists have neglected their task. There is a failure in the public statements of some of IPCC s spokespersons and in particular how they are reported in the media. These are characterised by certainty and alarmism. And, to date, only few (American) members of IPCC, Richard Lindzen and John Christey, have denounced this practice ^[4]. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal of June 11, 2001, in reaction to media reports that the science was settled , Richard Lindzen, who is professor of meteorology at MIT, member of the IPCC, and member of the American National Academy of Sciences Panel on Climate Change, neatly sums up what meteorologists/climatologists know and what they don t know.