How long do you predict that the IAC's report on the IPCC will be taken out of context...?

I suspect that this particular episode will soon fizzle out. History shows us that the skeptics and deniers have a tendency to latch on to anything and everything that comes along, distort it to suit their own ends and discard it when something new arrives. A case of being forced to make do with whatever is available at the time in the absence of anything more credible.

There are of course exceptions and Climategate is perhaps the most obvious. Since the story broke at the end of last year it has taken on a life of it’s own and the revisionist historians have already been at work and ascribed any number of spurious claims to it. To whit we see more and more statements along the lines of ‘scientists admitted they made up global warming’.

Now of course, the fact that the IPCC commissioned the report themselves, that it was conducted by IAC scientists and that it validated the work of the IPCC is of no consequence whatsoever. If there has been no criticism at all then it would have been branded a whitewash and used as proof that global warming doesn’t exist. There are a small number of criticisms and therefore in the eyes of the deniers and skeptics, this also constitutes proof that global warming is false.

We’ve seen this behaviour several times already in light of the various investigations into Climategate. They didn’t produce the findings the skeptics and deniers wanted and therefore this proves global warming is a hoax.

With regard to the deniers, the content of the report is irrelevant, whatever is published is conclusive proof that there’s no such thing as global warming.

What will happen in the future? We may already have heard the last of it, if not then there will be the inevitable embellishments causing further embarrassment for the deniers as they demonstrate their increasing propensity to resort to lies and distortions.

In a couple of months the final report will be published, this will again provide fuel for the deniers and I suspect we will see the same unfounded claims being repeated once more.

I thought you'd like to know one of the ads that Y!A posted next to your question:

"How Long Do Hemorrhoids Last

How Long Do Hemorrhoids Last Supplies. Visit Today.

HealthHelpHub.com"

Y!A has an algorithm to place ads based on the content of the question. Why did the computer decided to link your question to that ad? ... Makes you wonder. (And it gave me a laugh)

.....................

But, onwards to your question.

There are people who, no matter what you say, will twist it and use it against you. And the skeptics will do so. Let them be. That the US National Academy of Sciences came out earlier this year with several reports on the potential severity of global warming and the need to take immediate action.should have been sufficient to quash any lingering questions regarding Climategate, but did it? No. Expect the skeptics to dribble on and on.

Suppose 97 aerospace engineers told you that the structural member supporting the wing was likely to fail in the very near future, but 3 others said don't worry, it won't fail. What would you do? Fly in the plane? Heck, I'd be worried if only 3 said the support holding the wings was likely to fail. And I'm not sure the skeptics would either.

It is risk and probability that need to be conveyed to the general public. Not which side is right or wrong.

Not overly pertinent to me as long as fear mongering(heighten awareness) is left at the door step. If adaptation and mitigation prove successful whats the worry? The common man is doing more than their share of the lifting. Go to the source and get them to explain why they can't adjust. Governments of any sort do not like to be held accountable for pi_s poor decisions. Their solutions are always condensed into more taxes with less benefits while blaming someone else.

I almost bought into the C40 community( adaptation), but the more I read the more cynical I became. They are nothing but showcases, while small local municipalities are neglected because their voices fall on deaf ears.

There is probably a run on sentence and the deniers with obsess on the typo.

Everybody knows that if you make a typo absolutely everything else you state is probably a lie.

Probably until the next big misconception arises. These people find every little tiny thing they can in order to attempt to cast doubt and those who can not think for themselves follow them. If there was one blue bunny in a field of red bunnies and they were asked to find the ratio of blue to red bunnies they would say there are 10 green bunnies.

The IAC 'assessment' was pretty Wuss.... they went 'through the motions', but in the end they expressed their drunken adulation of the IPCC.

The Climategate emails on the other hand, are quite damning for the Warmist movement, exposing a cadre of corrupt, self-righteous twits who are attempting to make themselves important by criminal manipulation/falsification of data and methodology. This handful of creeps have set the reputations and credibility of scientists back to the Dark Ages.

Edit: Dana.... thank YOU for proving MY point (regarding "self-righteous twits")

I don't think they are against the IPCC at all. They may be trying to fluff up their feathers and show how important they are but frankly I wouldn't take anything they say as anything other than political. In that regard, they are identical to IPCC>

Peter's attitude is perfectly accurate. It's the same phenomenon that makes 1 in 5 people say ( though not necessarily believe) that Obama is a Muslim.

In this denialist echo chamber, it is now standard procedure just to plug ones ears with both hands and start mumbling anytime anyone mentions IPCC or Phil Jones. The talk radio hosts and deniaist pundits have given the denialist lay person the go ahead to turn their brains completely off when any piece of information about global warming comes from credible sources. It's like telling a Fox news viewer that a study from a different network contradicted what they believe. It just doesn't penetrate. They've concocted their own network of "facts" and they wouldn't acknowledge something obvious it was sitting right in front of them. Not always because they are studid, but because they believe in whatever works. They have "sold their souls to the devil" to protect their ideology.

As long as the Rabid Right (and I know this should NOT be a left-right issue, but the Becks and Rushes of this world so present it) continue to believe that they can construct their own reality.

Indefinitely...

I think this will be somewhat similar to the long-term response to Climategate. From now on, anytime somebody mentions Phil Jones or CRU or Hadley or anything Climategate-related, you can count on at least one denier answering "didn't you hear that Climategate exposed these scientists as frauds?".

*edit* thank you Offenzalot and BB for proving my point. And this guy:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au4v7...

I suspect that for the forseeable future, anytime somebody mentions the IPCC, at least one denier will answer "didn't you hear about the investigation that found the IPCC's conclusions were garbage?".

We can add it to the list of manufactured IPCC controversies like Amazongate and Glaciergate. It will be ammunition for those who would reject the IPCC's conclusions no matter what.

*edit* Peter's answer is a head-smacker. "As long as it gets the IPCC disbanded..."

WTF, did you not even bother to read the question? The whole point is that there is no way this report would get the IPCC disbanded. Its entire purpose was to improve the IPCC, and concluded "the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall."

Geez deniers are just so freaking dense.

Actually, this whole thing reminds me of an email Phil Jones sent to a denialist, which said something like "Why would I send my data to someone whose goal is to find something wrong with it?". He was talking about this exact sort of thing, where deniers find what they want to find even if it's not there. The IAC report finds that the IPCC is sucessful but makes some suggestions for improvement, and all the deniers get out if it is "the IPCC is flawed so it's garbage." This is why climate scientists are so frustrated with deniers. And then deniers are just shocked - shocked! - that climate scientists think so little of them. Duhhhh I wonder why.

*edit* David's answer exemplifies the denialist movement. They think everything is subject to interpretation. I'm reminded of a quote from Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."