How can the IPCC be considered an objective scientific organization?

Of course not. Surely you know that the I in IPCC stands for interGOVERNMENTAL, and of course governmental = political. So, by its own admission, the IPCC is a political organization.

The IPPC was kind of a plan B solution. I don't think anyone expected the issue to end up with the UN. Nations handle most problems directly among the participants. That's the track Global Warming and the other major environmental; problems had been on for the decades before Bush. The UN role was minimal. The IPCC wasn't a big deal. When Bush stunned the world by suddenly opting out of course the UN role expended. Something had to replace the leadership the USA had formerly provided. I doubt that anyone thought the KYOTO Accords were a be-all and end-all. They were a starting point. It's like SALT I and SALT II. The UN was designed to have a minimal executive role, and does most of its work through committees. I find those to be a slow and expensive way to guide action, but I don't see that there was a choice. Trust among Nations isn't great enough to allow any other single nation to lead a project with such deep economic impact. The USA had not distinguished itself, but the historic respect other countries had for the USA gave us the role by default until Bush's stunt.

I do feel the UN is acting in good faith, given the care they have taken to assure that all points of view are represented, including the skeptics, in order to provide objective advice. The other major partner is the World Meteorological Organization which has done the same thing, again with the intent of guaranteeing impartiality as well as expertise.

Two reasons.

There is no surer way for a scientist to wreck his career than to try "scamming" science. Other scientists turn him in (in one famous case a researcher's graduate students did so, at great cost to their own careers).

The IPCC is a very large group of climate scientists from all over the world with a wide variety of funding sources. They keep each other honest.

These quotes more accurately demonstrate the reliability of the IPCC:

"Of course, being a consensus document, a lot of the material that I think is reasonably well-supported also gets weeded out through that process. If the IPCC says it you better believe it and then leave room to think it is actually a lot worse than they have said."

"The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be."

Cindy, do you read your links and understand what they are saying? It doesn't appear to me that you do. I mean, the Stossel article, that kind of goes along with your post (although for all we know you are Stossel, and are just another self-publicizing skeptic only in high-heels and lipstick), but the other two have nothing to do with what you claim they do. Have you considered a remedial reading course to help with comprehension and retention?

The answer is no, people like you would not consider the IPCC an objective scientific organization. But then, people like you don't consider the U.S. National Academy of Science an objective scientific organization. That people like you distrust both the IPCC and the NAS says more about people like you than it does about organizations like the IPCC and NAS.

It's not...they are peer review and advisory committee. They can't dictate policy at least not directly, but do have union(ary) tactics, ie; if you don't play by our rules we quit.The (TAR), gave an example of this with the oil companies members, who question the decision making processes. The biggest worry might be, becoming a international pseudo government institution that self promotes? You can always go to the (SEPP), web site...I don't really care for it either. But at least your not looking through a one way mirror.

http://www.sepp.org/

The authors of the various IPCC reports receive no monetary compensation for their efforts. So neither their jobs nor valuable money depend of the validity of global warming theory.

You denialists get worse and worse by the day, don't you? Insinuating that the majority of the world's scientists are engaged in fraud and then lying to prove your point is downright contemptible. Remind me never to take you seriously again.

It's not, but as close as you can get. In fact, the first draft said it was "virtually certain" that human activities had affected the climate. That was watered down by countries like China (need their coal), Saudi Arabia and Russia (both making huge amounts of money from their oil and gas) and the final wording was "very likely" instead.

This is what US EPA says about the state of knowledge about climate change:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofkn...

they don't get payed for participating they do it in there spare time. there are problems with the ipcc. such as the long review process and its predictions tending to be slightly conservative but its still fairly accurate.[1] [2]

the overwhelming majority of evidence is with AGW.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science