IPCC Working Group 2, “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” is currently meeting to finalise its Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which will be published in a few days time (discussed in this BBC report which says that Richard Tol has asked for his name to be removed because of the increasing alarmism).
The edits are interesting, showing a ramping up of alarm and a down-playing of adaptation in favour of mitigation (ironically, the opposite of what Andrew Lilico is claiming in the Telegraph).
In the AR4 WG2 SPM (2007), the word ‘mitigation’ only appears 6 times, while ‘adaptation’ appears about 35 times. In the new document, there seems to be more emphasis on mitigation alongside adaptation (recall that mitigation is supposed to be the remit of WG3).
Here are a few of the edits, all from the first 5 pages:
Insertion of ‘limits to adaptation’
Insertion of alarmist definiton of ‘hazard’
Deletion of statement saying present ill health due to climate is relatively small
Insertion of claim that droughts, floods and cyclones are climate-related (apparently contradicting WG1).
Can readers find other examples? Or examples of where the edits downplay alarm?