UN retreating on global warming theory

The "science" underlying global warming theory is about to be recognized as a bit shakier by the UN itself, according to the UK Sunday Telegraph.

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
The organization still insists on little doubt that mankind is warming the planet, though there is still no explanation for all the huge variations in climate which occurred prior to man having the ability to operate on a sufficient scale to hypothesize such doomsday outcomes. Clearly mechanisms for variation in the global climate exist outside of our control. So how is the UN so certain (subject to substantial revision, of course, but still with little doubt) that mankind is driving change today?

I wonder if Al Gore is going to revise some of his scary visual aids about rising ocean waters?

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
I remember when many aerosol sprays were withdrawn from the market. Now, it seems that they have been helping. Evidently, we made our "problem" worse. At least according to the theory today.

There is an obvious question. Shouldn't we be aware that we can rush into exactly the wrong "solution" when we know so little? Let's be honest: this global warming issue is nothing more than an unproven theory, which is constantly being revised, and which fails to explain past instances of climate change.
Why would we rush into crippling our own economy on the basis of such thin foundation?

Hat tip: Richard Baehr
The "science" underlying global warming theory is about to be recognized as a bit shakier by the UN itself, according to the UK Sunday Telegraph.

Mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed, a United Nations report on climate change will claim next year.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there can be little doubt that humans are responsible for warming the planet, but the organisation has reduced its overall estimate of this effect by 25 per cent.
The organization still insists on little doubt that mankind is warming the planet, though there is still no explanation for all the huge variations in climate which occurred prior to man having the ability to operate on a sufficient scale to hypothesize such doomsday outcomes. Clearly mechanisms for variation in the global climate exist outside of our control. So how is the UN so certain (subject to substantial revision, of course, but still with little doubt) that mankind is driving change today?

I wonder if Al Gore is going to revise some of his scary visual aids about rising ocean waters?

The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in.
It also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.
I remember when many aerosol sprays were withdrawn from the market. Now, it seems that they have been helping. Evidently, we made our "problem" worse. At least according to the theory today.

There is an obvious question. Shouldn't we be aware that we can rush into exactly the wrong "solution" when we know so little? Let's be honest: this global warming issue is nothing more than an unproven theory, which is constantly being revised, and which fails to explain past instances of climate change.
Why would we rush into crippling our own economy on the basis of such thin foundation?

Hat tip: Richard Baehr