The United States and China are signatories to Kyoto, but Washington has not ratified the treaty, and China, along with other developing countries, is not bound by its mandatory emissions caps.

“Today the world’s scientists have spoken, clearly and in one voice,” Mr. Ban said of the report, the Synthesis Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “In Bali, I expect the world’s policymakers to do the same.”

He added, “The breakthrough needed in Bali is for a comprehensive climate change deal that all nations can embrace.”

Although Mr. Ban has no power to enforce members of the United Nations to act, his statements on Saturday increased the pressure on the United States and China, participants here said.

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gases had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster, which could leave island nations submerged and abandoned, reduce African crop yields by 50 percent, and cause a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

The panel’s fourth and final report summarized and integrated the most significant findings of three sections of a climate-science review that were released between January and April. Because the data had not previously been reviewed as a whole, scientists said the synthesized report was more explicit, creating new emphasis and alarm.

The first section of the review had covered climate trends; the second, the world’s ability to adapt to a warming planet; the third, strategies for reducing carbon emissions. With their mission concluded, the hundreds of IPCC scientists spoke more freely than they had previously.

“The sense of urgency when you put these pieces together is new and striking,” said Martin Parry, a British climate expert who was co-chairman of the delegation that wrote the second report. “I’ve come out of this process more pessimistic about the possibilities than I thought I would.”

The panel, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last month, said the world would have to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 to prevent serious climate disruptions.

“If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” said Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

He said that since the IPCC began its work five years ago, scientists had recorded “much stronger trends in climate change,” like a recent melting of Arctic ice that had not been predicted. “That means you better start with intervention much earlier.”

Saturday’s synthesis report was reviewed and approved by delegates from 130 nations gathered here this week. But unlike the earlier reviews, in which governments had insisted on changes that diluted the reports’ impact, this time scientists and environmental groups said there had been no major dilution of the data.

For example, this report’s summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperatures could result in a substantive sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

“Many of my colleagues would consider that kind of melt a catastrophe” so rapid that mankind would not be able to adapt, said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University who contributed to the IPCC.

“It’s extremely clear and is very explicit that the cost of inaction will be huge compared to the cost of action,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. “We can’t afford to wait for some perfect accord to replace Kyoto, for some grand agreement. We can’t afford to spend years bickering about it. We need to start acting now.”

He said that delegates in Bali should take action immediately where they agree, for example, on public financing for new technologies like capturing emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and pumping it underground. He said energy ministers should start a global fund to help poor countries avoid deforestation, which releases greenhouse gases and reduces the uptake of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis.

United Nations officials pointed out that strong policies were needed, like increasing the energy efficiency of cars and setting up carbon markets, a system that essentially forces companies and countries to pay for the cost of the greenhouse gases they emit.

The European Union already has such a carbon trading system in place for many industries, and is fighting to bring airlines into the plan.

“Stabilization of emissions can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that exist or are already under development,” said Achim Steiner, head of the United Nations Environment Program.

But he noted that developed countries would have to help poorer ones adapt to climate shifts and adopt cleaner energy choices, which are often expensive.

Mr. Steiner emphasized that the report sent a message to individuals as well as world leaders: “What we need is a new ethic in which every person changes lifestyle, attitude and behavior.”

Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s reaction to the report was muted. At a news conference Friday night after the report was approved, James L. Connaughton, the chairman of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality, said President Bush had agreed with leaders of the other major industrialized nations that “the issue warrants urgent action, and we need to bring forward in a more accelerated way the technologies that will make a lasting solution possible.”

He declined to say how much warming the administration considered acceptable, saying, “We don’t have a view on that.”

Mr. Connaughton acknowledged that the United States, like other nations, had tried to make some changes to the draft. Dr. Sharon L. Hays, the leader of the American delegation here, said the goal was not political but “to make sure the final report matches the science.” She noted that the United States had invested $12 billion in climate research since 2001.

Stephanie Tunmore, a member of Greenpeace International who had observer status as the countries debated the text, questioned that explanation.

She said, for example, that the United States had tried to remove a section of the report titled “Reasons for Concern,” which listed consequences of climate change that are either likely or possible. One was the melting of ice sheets, which the panel said could take place more rapidly than previously thought.

The Americans argued that there was no reason to include the section, because all of it was contained somewhere in the previous IPCC technical documents, she said. But the section remained in the report.

The Rosen Law Firm today announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of Industrial Enterprises of America, Inc. ("IEAM" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IEAM) (formerly IEAM.OB) stock during the period from November 14, 2006 through November 8, 2007 (the "Class Period").

To join the IEAM class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as case no. 07-CV-10321. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of court or you may contact counsel for plaintiffs Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.

The complaint charges that IEAM and certain of its present and former officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining to IEAM's business prospects and condition, and filing financial statements with the SEC materially false financial statements.

On November 7, 2007 the Company announced that investors could no longer rely on its historical financial statements and that the Company had not properly followed generally accepted accounting principles, necessitating a revision of reported revenue, among other things. The Company also announced that it had suspended its CFO pending a review. As a result of these events, the Complaint asserts that the price of IEAM stock dropped, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of IEAM shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 15, 2008. If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions.

CBS filed a motion yesterday seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit by Dan Rather, who says that the network violated his contract by giving him too little to do after it forced him off the evening news in 2005 and that its investigation of the news segment about President Bush’s National Guard service was politically biased.

“This lawsuit is a regrettable attempt by plaintiff Dan Rather to remain in the public eye, and to settle old scores and perceived slights, based on an array of far-fetched allegations,” the network said in a 30-page brief filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. The papers represented the network’s first response to the suit Mr. Rather filed on Sept. 19.

Referring specifically to Mr. Rather’s assertion that CBS and its senior executives had sought to do the White House’s bidding in commissioning an incomplete investigation of the National Guard segment, the network said: “CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather.”

Mr. Rather agreed to step down from the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005, a year earlier than he had planned, after the network said it could not authenticate documents that had been used as evidence in the segment about Mr. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard.

In response to arguments that CBS gave Mr. Rather insufficient airtime after he left the “CBS Evening News” — first on the weeknight edition of “60 Minutes” and later on the flagship Sunday edition — the network cited a “pay or play” clause in his contract. “As long as Rather was paid the specified compensation, CBS had no obligation to give him any on-air exposure,” the network said.

In an accompanying statement, the network called Mr. Rather “one of the most important figures in the history of journalism” and said it was “mystified and saddened” by the suit.

A spokesman for Mr. Rather’s lawyers released a statement last night that said: “It is unfortunate that CBS is trying to delay discovery of the facts and a trial of Dan’s claims. We are confident the court will reject these tactics and allow the case to go forward.”

A face-off begins this coming week among the world's major powers over whether to impose new economic sanctions to pressure Iran into suspending its nuclear-fuel program.

Weeks of shadow diplomacy will start to gel on Thursday, when the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, meets in Vienna to debate the IAEA's latest report on Iranian cooperation with inspections of its fuel program. Iran says its program is purely civilian. The U.S. and its European allies believe it is for weapons.

The positions of the U.N.'s big powers are already well staked out. The U.S., Britain and France want the U.N. Security Council to impose a third round of much tougher sanctions on Iran. China and Russia are reluctant. Twice already, when Iran failed to meet suspension deadlines, the Security Council has worked out a middle road of relatively low-impact sanctions. This time, as an end-of-month deadline for Iran to suspend enrichment approaches, reaching agreement is likely to be harder.

One reason is that the Security Council's strategy has been questioned lately. That strategy is to pressure Iran to suspend its fuel program, so it can't develop the know-how to make fuel for nuclear warheads even as it negotiates guarantees of the fuel program's peaceful nature. The IAEA's chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, in May said the strategy had become pointless. Iran already has the know-how, he said.

The Egyptian-born diplomat then made his own parallel proposals to Tehran, asking the Iranians to come clean on questions about how its decades-old covert nuclear program was developed. Mr. ElBaradei circulated his progress report on that effort Thursday. It said the Iranians are being more transparent but are still holding back some information and have accelerated their enrichment program.

The common international front on Iran, always shaky, shows growing stress. Russia and China have been angered by U.S. saber-rattling and unilateral sanctions, as well as by threats from France and Britain that Europe could impose unilateral sanctions on Iran's oil and finance industries if the Security Council doesn't act. That Security Council vote is scheduled for December.

China Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, visiting Tehran earlier this past week, said further sanctions would do "no good." Russian media and trade publications have widely reported that Iran has begun talks to buy more than 200 Russian SU-30 fighter jets and 40 Chinese J-10 aircraft to modernize its obsolete air force. Iran has neither confirmed nor denied the talks. China this past week scuttled a meeting on Iran of senior diplomats from the major powers, scheduled for Monday in Brussels, citing a schedule conflict, according to diplomats familiar with the matter.

"There has been dragging of feet by the Chinese" on a new council resolution, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters in New York Thursday, warning Beijing that if it blocked further U.N. sanctions, it would be responsible for the failure of diplomacy to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

Awash in oil revenue, Iran appears increasingly confident it can outlast the Western pressure. Tehran didn't even reply to an offer from European Union foreign-policy representative Javier Solana, who negotiates with Iran on behalf of the EU and the Security Council's permanent members, to hold talks this coming week ahead of the next suspension deadline.