When we go to major sporting events , my kids love to play the `` Shuffle Hat '' game on the Jumbotron screen . A ball is placed under a hat , and the hats are shuffled around quickly to distract you . If you keep your eye on the hat with the ball , you can usually find it . The public increasingly faces a similar shell game with climate science information . Every four to six years , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assesses and reviews the most recent science , technology and societal impacts related to climate change . Created in 1988 by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization , the IPCC will begin the roll out of its fifth assessment report this week . In an era where some give more credence to climate predictions from rodents or almanacs , clarity is needed . U.N. climate change panel releases last science . For me , the hat with the ball from the IPCC report is that it continues to affirm that our planet is warming , and humans are a significant contributor to the warming . Andrew Dessler , professor and author of `` Introduction to Modern Climate Change , '' noted in a recent phone conversation the remarkable consistency in the main conclusions of every previous IPCC report . The analysis also provides measured thoughts on implications for the frequency and intensity of certain extreme weather events . Extreme weather and climate directly affect many aspects of society , including public health , agriculture and national security . Navy Adm. Samuel Locklear , commander of the U.S. Pacific Command , has noted that climate change is the biggest new threat to Pacific security . Recently , an elderly man from my church said , `` Doc , what 's going on ? The weather is different . '' For a public increasingly inquisitive about what they see around them , it is important to be aware of the distracting hats whizzing around and to keep your eye on the hat with the ball . Many recent discussions have focused on `` uncertainty . '' Yes , topics of uncertainty exist in climate science as in any science , but this does not render the science unusable . Most readers would take an umbrella or expect rain if the weather forecast called for a 95 % or greater chance of rain . How silly would it sound to say , `` Do n't bother getting an umbrella because there is 5 % uncertainty in that forecast '' ? Climate change may increase violence , study shows . Dessler characterized the fuss over climate uncertainty in the new report this way : `` The change that has everyone in a tizzy is a slight enlargement of one side of the error bar ( range of error for climate sensitivity ) . If that 's the biggest change , then things are not changing very much . '' Another way of thinking about it is : How silly would it be for a father and mother to argue about whether their child is going to have a fever of 101.5 or 102 ? High profile legal cases like the O.J . Simpson or George Zimmerman trials have increased public understanding of `` reasonable doubt . '' Environmental Health News ' Peter Dykstra made a point that resonated with me . Science does n't operate on a `` reasonable doubt '' basis . If so , I suppose we would take our chances and not grab an umbrella because that 95 % chance of rain is not 100 % . Similarly , would most parents not take action because the pediatrician 's diagnosis has some uncertainty ? It is important to understand and respect the scientific process . It operates differently than a court system , business decision or legislation . The peer-reviewed science literature provides a mechanism to publish , scrutinize and test climate science . In the United States , the Food and Drug Administration ensures that our foods and medicines are safe . Peer review serves a similar role for science . Good science inherently involves skepticism . However , regardless of the side of an issue , if the skepticism is always one-directional , is it skepticism or bias ? Recently , the IPCC has been criticized for being too slow or too big . This is a fair discussion to have , but it should n't distract us from the findings in the latest report . Science requires time to sort out the truth from fiction , for theories to be tested or challenged . It is not well suited for tweets and blogs , which allow `` zombie theories '' -- ideas that have been debunked but continue to live on . Along these lines , some publications are removing or limiting online comments in order to protect scientific integrity . As I write this commentary , I am watching football highlights . I debate football vigorously with my friends , but we always walk away friends . Irrespective of viewpoint , calling people `` deniers '' or `` warmists '' is counterproductive and inflammatory . There are deep-rooted feelings that have created zealotry , and at times , all sides have crossed lines of civility . I am proud to say that I enjoy very solid collegial and personal relationships with people who I sometimes disagree with on climate science . Climate sticker shock : Arctic thaw could cost $ 60 trillion . On the eve of the IPCC 's fifth assessment report , I still have faith in the scientific method , the common sense and keen eye of people , and human courtesy . These things will keep our hat with the ball .
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases its fifth assessment report Friday . J. Marshall Shepherd : The report affirms that our planet is warming and humans are a factor . He says extreme weather and climate affect our health , agriculture and national security . Shepherd : Despite uncertainty , analysis shows warming that we should n't ignore .