The IPCC is a UN political group.
The name says it all - The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The
Intergovernmental
Panel - an intergovernmental panel is now deciding science -
poor
science!!
on climate change
- climate always changes - it's like the weather.
The IPCC have replaced the
Scientific
Doctrine and the Scientific Method with their own doctrine so science
is now decided by popular consensus - their popular [flat earth]
consensus.
This is illustrated with the "but thousands of scientists agree with us
so we must be right" assertion which ignores the fact that, in science,
theory is constantly overturned or severely modified by individuals
with reproducable evidence.
This allows new discoveries to constantly overturn the popular
concensus and keeps our knowlege of the universe up to date.
That is gone now.
The IPCC invite hundreds of
Scientists
to contribute to the consensus on Global Warming.
Most have computer models on
climate
change which pre-suppose global warming.
They then run a political process where all contary opinion is
disregarded and they determine the concensus.
They produce a turgid, verbose, Scientific Report along with a slick, glossy Summary for Governments and the Media.
Reading it, a real scientist will not take it seriously. There is no dissent, no discussion, no argument, and computer modeling of such an extremely complex system is only a very interesting exercise that would need to be validated by other means. Even if they wade right through all the tedious, stilted report they do not find any such validation.On the other hand a politician reading it would immediately recognize this list of qualitative epithets which can be used to fake the validation of the computer models without ever giving any quantitative information [facts and figures] on which that validation might be based.
"consistent" is the most popular. Then there are "consistent picture", "best estimate", "remarkable consistency", "good agreement", "It is likely that", "a degree of consistency", "ample evidence", "indicate that", "significant", "about", "compelling evidence", "only slightly", "coincides with", "relate well", "broadly consistent with", "qualitatively consistent with", "strongly support", "better predict" (here, they are naughty; you are not supposed to say "predict", it has to be "project"), "varying quality" "improvements have been made" (on what?), "more firmly established", " about a factor of". "broad quantitative estimate" (oxymoron!), "substantial gains", "notable advances", "overall confidence", "ability to reproduce", "major improvements", "more realistically depict", "growing capabilities". And so on and so on.
[Opologies to Dr Vincent Gray http://www.john-daly.com/tar-gray/tar-spm.htm ]
A lawyer reading it would love the verbose prose and jargon but would soon realize that the case was far too circumstantial.
The IPCC claims that the planet is warming, the weather's going wild, disease is spreading, the sea is rising, weeds are growing and all this as a result of burning fossil fuels;
and why? because computer programs predict it and thousands of scientists agree with it.People who know and like Science would say that is ridiculous - and they'd be right.
The IPCC greenies have never established that the examples they cite of global warming are anything but natural phenomena.
They have completely failed to establish a causal link to the burning of fuels.
Unfortunately climate science has now been locked into the IPCC dogma and new discoveries that contradict it are not permitted and cannot attract funds.
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,02098.cfm
CEI_ORG Competitive Enterprise Institute IPCC Report Criticized by One of Its Lead Authors.htmType in "IPCC" into you favorite search engine there is dissent out there - and a lot of it
http://www.sepp.org/ipcccont/ipcccont.html
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/guests/un_ipcc.htm
http://www.webace.com.au/~wsh/fos_sfp.htm