More climate-change politics this morning, I'm afraid. As you might be aware, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the multinational UN organization that is tasked with the problem of climate change, is in the process of releasing its fourth assessment report on the "global present state of knowledge on climate change."

The IPCC has three working groups, that deal with "The Physical Science Basis," "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability," and "Mitigation of Climate Change." These three groups can be summed up as "How is it happening," "What happens when it happens," and "How the hell do we stop it or deal with it?" Working Group I has already released its outline, and there are draft copies of their part of the report that have leaked onto the internet. Working Group III meets at the end of this month in Bangkok, and Working Group II, who have been meeting in Brussels, released their summary this morning. This summary is intended to distill the contents of the 1,500-page scientific report down to the point where it can be easily read and understood by policymakers.

But the release of that summary has not been without incident. Although the scientists behind the document were happy with their effort, they encountered fierce diplomatic pressure from a number of countries to tone down their language. The problem arises from the use of common language to describe scientific certainty. If one were speaking to another scientist, then they might describe certainty of outcome as a percentage; a 90 percent certainty, for example, or a 99 percent certainty. As the IPCC summaries are meant for politicians, very few of whom appear to have anything more than rudimentary scientific knowledge, these percentages are translated into plainer English.

The heart of the problem has been the successful efforts by delegates from China and Saudi Arabia to change language describing how many natural ecosystems around the world are already being affected. Originally, it was reported that there was "a very high confidence" that areas around the globe "are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases." "A very high confidence" translates as a 90 percent certainty, but under political pressure, this was downgraded to "a high certainty," meaning only 80 percent. Other parts of the report were also watered down, causing outrage amongst the scientists who authored the report.

It would be naive of me to expect that such a thing would not or could not happen, but I can't get away from the feeling that this is more than a little shortsighted on the parts of those nations that are downplaying the problems we face. Editing a word or graph out of the report is not going to stop the Himalayan glaciers from melting, leaving China with a freshwater shortage. It's not going to stop the northward spread of tropical diseases into Europe, and it's not stopping the Gulf region of the US from being battered by tropical storms of increasing intensity. You can lie to yourself that your shoes are on fire all you like, but when the flames start licking at your navel, did it really matter?