Is it about time that the IPCC reconsider its belief that man is causing climate change?

Easterbrook, Spencer and a dozen or so others are working like crazy to restore sanity and the scientific method from the disgrace these global warming charlatans have brought on the scientific community. this is why the law has the ability to disbar this kind of person from practice. The medical and other professional groups have the ability to either prevent such charlatans from practicing or to expel them when they participate in political activities that bring disgrace and shame upon their community.

data from the last several years certainly correlates more closely with Easterbrooks unpopular predictions than with the IPCC predictions.

we should know which modeling method is more accurate within the next 30 years.

not that it will have any noticeable effect on anyones daily life.

the current AGW debate is comparable to & quite similar to the useless but very heated debate over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin that theologians & scholars were obsessed with during medieval times.

the only way it will have any effect on peoples lives is if it accidentally leads to more accurate methods for long term weather predictions for farmers.

i'm no longer able to have faith you communicate approximately "info" and then grant links to a gaggle of political blogs. you particularly do stay in some variety of myth worldwide the place you may no longer distinguish certainty from fiction, are you able to? the frightening area is that there are literally hundreds of folk obtainable as uneducated as your self, letting your self be duped by using a gaggle of morons with communicate exhibits and conservative columns, yet you do no longer even think of roughly studying the 1st element approximately technology. i do no longer understand human beings like your self that decide for to be willfully ignorant, do you think of there is a few vindication of lack of understanding by using fact there are maximum of human beings prepared to have faith a similar rubbish? Willingly identifying directly to be stupid must be against the regulation.

Tolstoi said it best:

I know that most men, including those at ease with

problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom

accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if

it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity

of conclusions which they have delighted in

explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly

taught to others, and which they have woven, thread

by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

Tolstoi

Tolstoy was a very great man and also a great skeptic about any form of political correctness. He is one of those i most admire for standing firm against those who would oppress the average man like today's liberals want to do.

The IPCC is a politically-driven movement created and controlled by the UN. Knowing how inefficient and corrupt the UN itself can be, it's time to disband their puppet, the IPCC. Many scientists in the IPCC have already jumped ship though, after becoming aware of the hidden agenda. Growing numbers want nothing to do with it, and those who remain are just there to take advantage of the grant money.

They and their controllers should be held accountable for their actions, and prison doors should swing open to welcome most of them.

It is always interesting to note the objections of those who have quite obviously not bothered to read an IPCC report. If you had, you would know that they attach a percentage on the likelihood that GW is caused by human activity that figure is ~90% this is not a "headlong dive" as you quaintly put it but based on the work of several thousand "real" scientists from around the world.

A 90% estimate coming from scientists is what I would consider short odds that is not worth betting against given the potential cost if they are right and we do nothing. If I went to cardiologist and was told I had a 90% chance of a heart attack I would certainly do something.

What some people don't understand and probably don't want to understand is that environmentalism is a political movement, not a branch of science.

Environmentalism uses very select science to support gloom and doom scenarios which tend to be somewhat unrealistic. Environmentalists have been crying wolf that the Earth is dying from one thing and another for a long time now. The IPCC is nothing new in that regard.

RE: Ben O's answer -

Your close - Environmentalism is not a political group. It is more like a religion. (See link)......a scary, whacked-out, nihlistic, anti-social group of tin-foil hat wearing crackpots.

They are always reconsidering their conclusions. That is what we scientists do. This one paper submitted at conference is not going to change what they are already doing. Are they going to change position because of one paper? Probably not.