Are these the only ten reasons why the IPCC should be disbanded?

Directly from the horse's mouth:

If you agree -- you're in and an ally. If you don't, you're a "denier" and a lunatic. Interestingly enough -- these experts turned lunatics were the reviewers and lead author's of the report and they seem to have a strong opinion about the "scientific consensus" that's been advertised through that political body.

• Dr. Kiminori Itoh; IPCC Expert Reviewer, award-winning environmental physical chemist: "[Warming fears are the] worst scientific scandal in the history ... When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

• Dr. Kenneth Green (2009); IPCC Expert Reviewer: "A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism ... We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."

• Dr Vincent Gray; Expert Reviewer of every draft of the IPCC reports since 1990, climate researcher and author of more than 100 papers: "The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense."

• Dr Tom Segalstad (2009); Head of geology at Oslo University: "Most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible"

• Dr. Philip Lloyd (2009); IPCC Co-coordinating Lead Author and author of over 150 papers: "It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay"

• Dr. Richard Lindzen, Former IPCC Lead Author, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT: "Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life. ... [The IPCC is] not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else...but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations."

• Dr. Paul Reiter, IPCC participant, malaria expert, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, professor of entomology and tropical disease at the Pasteur Institute. He resigned from the IPCC and had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC: "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed. ... We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists - but they continue to ignore the facts, and perpetuate the lies."

• Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, IPCC Expert Reviewer, former Virginia State Climatologist and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences: "Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any support for Gore's hypothesis. ... [Instead] NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen said in 1989 that scientists had to choose ‘the right balance between being effective and honest' about global warming."

• Dr. John Christy; IPCC Lead Author in 2001, says on CNN, May 2, 2007 UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes: "I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as [IPCC] lead authors ... [and] how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol."

• Dr. Christopher W. Landsea, IPCC Author and Reviewer, atmospheric scientist, expert with NOAA's National Hurricane Centre. Resigned from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science: "I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. ... I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being

motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

How awkward and embarrassing that some of the scientists who contributed to the report are calling for the actual study of the science absent the political and ideological push. Can't beat the process I suppose -- bureaucrats have the last say.

"There is a serious case for the IPCC to be disbanded as it is not following its founding principals. I put the main reasons below please let me know if you can think of any more:"

Do you also think Santa is real, your list of 10 items is utter nonsense drawn straight from the fictional world of groups like the Heartland Institute. It ignores simply facts The Arctic is melting (and faster than the IPCC predicted)

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_...

The (experts ? of the Heartland Institute) are the same experts at the scienceandpublicpolicy (and quite a few other sites) which try to give the appearance of being independent but they are not, The SPPI has about as much credibility as the average UFO website.

If you really were genuine and had a little knowledge of your subject matter the personal list for the SPPI might give you pause

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/personnel.html

President: Robert Ferguson

Chief Science Adviser: Willie Soon PhD

Chief Policy Adviser: Lord Monckton, UK (not any sort of a scientist, a retired journalist)

Science Adviser: Robert M. Carter, Ph.D (heavily involved in the mining industry in Australia)

Science Adviser: Craig Idso, Ph. D (seems to be a professional denier science adviser)

Idso (with the rest of his family) also operate this site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_...

and like most of these sites the funding comes from the oil industry

and you are making comments about the IPCC and "vested interests" that's hilarious!

As for Willie Soon he has been trying to push his theory that solar variation is the cause of warming in spite of the fact that basic data shows the Sun has had no meaningful change in output in three decades that would explain the current changes, or the Solar physics community think his theory is nonsense.

The rubbish that these guys are generating is starting to become comical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon#Polar_bea...

Another example of the BS these sites claim is "in their own words" in the SPPI link above were willie soon bio gives him the he was presented with the Petr Beckmann award of the by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, wow some real science there, Petr Beckmann was an electrical engineer who thought he had proved "relativity and Einstein) wrong and "Doctors for Disaster Preparedness" is just the OISM, this is pathetic! - standard practice for the SPPI.

in one observe sure, in my view that's the biggest team of prepared across the worldwide known criminals interior the worldwide. The scientists are cut as much as no remember if the may even artwork with the IPCC or no longer. lots of the counsel they get regarding the way forward for our climate is in keeping with laptop fashions, and as everybody over 25 that works with computers can inform you, GIGO (rubbish in rubbish out) in case you place defective records right into a application or laptop kind, all you will get out of it rather is defective records witch is a ask your self to no person however the folk on the IPCC. They don’t also have a stable information of what are worldwide sounds like understand as each and every of the conflicting and nonsensical learn’s prepare us, and you will't are awaiting the destiny devoid of information the present. it is how I see it, in basic terms one mans lowly opinion take It for what its properly worth.

IMO, the main reason they should be disbanded is that they lack ethics and morals because they put pressure on scientists who advance global cooling or predict an ice age, based on past geological evidence and weather patterns discerned form tree rings and other evidence.

Their behavior is censorship with the goal of personal political gain rather than the advancement of science for science's sake.

2 - Actually some are, but they are silenced. Some are honest scientists searching for objective truths, if you read the emails leaked from the CRU their is some mention of these people and their feelings on climate change.

Your other reasons are perfect for abolishing them. I favor continuing climate science, because it is important. Perhaps it would be better to sever the connection between the IPCC's bad influences.

You need to give one valid reason first. Your source is ironic:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science...

Lord Monckton - the guy who thought AIDS patients should be quarantined.

Global warming deniers seek to silence the scientific community by getting rid of prestigious organizations that present inconvenient facts. They have a long way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

I think that the 10 reasons cited by you pretty much cover it.

The IPCC is not necessary.... it should be disbanded...... and their staff forced to find REAL jobs..... preferably in the fast-food or housekeeping industry.

11.they are part of the UN (the most corrupt organization on the planet)

THE

IPCC

IS NOT

THE

ONLY

RESEARCH

CENTER

IN

THE

WORLD!