Why is the IPCC censoring their own scientists?

They are required to. Their report's PURPOSE is to agree with the politicians and liberal loons. Not exactly evenhanded, is it?

the international has lost a real and uncommon megastar interior of this variety of Michael Jackson. by no potential has there been this variety of in basic terms right expertise as him. His expertise and fan base has been compared to that of The Beatles and Elvis, yet i imagine its honest to assert that he's a legend a lot more advantageous than the different band or artist. His songs were quite influential to the song international and set a common so intense that not some thing because has quite compared. there has been no different artist who has executed such dizzy heights as Jackson. For me, Michael Jackson inspired me mutually with his dancing potential and his songs. there is not a song of his that i do not love. i understand lots of the words to his songs, and may want to observe his dancing for hours on end. Now i wasn't some tremendous fan, yet i believe he grow to be a real idol and that i do not imagine the international will see this variety of expertise ever lower back. i think he grow to be misunderstood and his quirky (and regularly somewhat off the wall) options were taken thoroughly the incorrect way via the international. It saddens me that the international is this variety of judgemental and vicious position, and that i favor he might want to have considered what number dependable and loving followers he had. RIP Michael Jackson.

I tell myself that I am too harsh on alarmists and should soften my tone to convince more people and then Bob writes a post equating skeptics of global warming alarmism with people that don't accept the theory of evolution or those that think we didn't land on the Moon. They can be truly infuriating though probably a nice guy, gullible, but nice.

The left doesn't believe that censoring skeptics is wrong because for them it is a cause and so what if the truth is stretched a little. IPCC clearly is a political organization, with political appointees that are expected to carry the political water.

Gawd, Cindy, creationists have been using this same tactic for decades. They're kooks who can't get their idiotic garbage published, so instead of doing real science they flit around with ridiculous conspiracy theories while favorably comparing themselves to Galieo. It's a trick as old as kookery. Sometimes, work isn't published because it really isn't good, and sometimes "dissenters" are ridiculed because they're ridiculous, not because they're mavericks being silenced by "the establishment."

A wise person once said: "Debating with global warming deniers is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you set up the rules the denier will fly in, knock over all the pieces, cluck a great deal, crap all over the board, and fly off claiming victory."

If you're going to run a campaign that completely ignores scientific reason, you're going to have to sensor your scientists

The AGW theory has always been like life on Mars - a highly speculative theory without any proof.

In recent years, people have latched onto it as a proven fact with the reasoning that if scientists come up with this theory then it must be fact. .

lol. I remember hearing creationist in the 80's make the same bogus claims when they couldn't get their "papers" published in real scientific journals. One criteria for getting a paper published in a scientific journal is that it is actually based on science and has something of worth.

It amazes me that people think just because they have an opinion and write about it that prestigious scientific journals are somehow obligated to publish it. It's a competitive field out there, if ever scientist wanna-be and his brother got their views published the quality of scientific journals would be no better than the blogasphere. Thankfully, there's still a little quality control in the scientific journals that keeps nonsense out of them.

Bob,

Care to provide any quality evidence that 99% of scientists agree with the "consensus"? A scientific organization announcing they agree with the "consensus" does not mean all of their members agree, it simply means that a small panel of members (usually around 10) mostly agree with the "consensus". So, do you have any evidence of your as of yet unsubstantiated claims?

They don't. And the cited website doesn't claim that they do.

The "skeptics" aren't being censored by anyone. Considering that they're just a few guys, with no good data and no backing from ANY major scientific organization, they get way more media attention than they deserve.

Sone "skeptics" deny evolution or think NASA faked the Moon landings, too. You can find a few scientists who will say anything. But 99+% of the world's scientist agree; global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

Your article doesn't even mention the IPCC. It just talks about a couple of scientists doing poor research who can't get their papers published because they're wrong. Boring.