Mike Hulme seems more concerned with people losing faith in Science and Scientists than anything else. He is still a avid supporter of the AGW hypothesis as far as I can discern.

Its interesting to watch the entire "the debate is over" crowd start to demand a more scrutiny of their OWN side of the debate as if they were not part of it at all.

Pachauri, who is not even a scientist, was never taken to task about his lack of qualifications by eminent Scientists. The Himalayan mistake was known before publication but the IPCC refused to remove it saying it was better to alarm people than correct it. Now there are many more mistakes being found in the same report.

So many eminent Scientists who said "the debate is over" didn't even check their facts. That's why we have no faith in Science, Mike, because none of you could find a single error.

By the way, guess where the Himalayan error came from? Well, the IPCC used an article from a Rock Climbing Magazine reporting anecdotal statements made by rock climbers in the area about ice cover.

So much for Peer reviewed literature!

No loyalty among the AGW conmen it seems. Mike must think that he can get East Anglia off the hook, by deflecting all the blame to their partners in crime, the IPCC.

He must be hoping everyone will forget the Freedom of information rorts, the data tampering, & the review ripoffs & all the other stuff.

We all know the system. Admit a minor blemish, & the rest will go away.

Good try mate, but you'll run out of white wash, & deodoriser, before you get this garbage hidden.

rstuart,

The IPCC's role "is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy... They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage”

I don't see anything about extracting a consensus. It is doing so that has attracted criticism.

You then strangely say "if the IPCC has indeed managed to fairly represent that consensus..." How can you "represent" a consensus that you just said was itself only a political exercise of extraction. You contradict yourself.

You then refer to some unidentified "rich and powerful part of our society who are doing their absolute damnedest to undermine it." I am neither rich nor powerful. Al Gore certainly is. At a recent juvenile climate "party" I went to, Tim Costello challenged the idea that warmers were all leftie green conspiracists by pointing to the fact that the event was sponsored by the National Australia Bank. Rich and powerful? Make up your mind.

YOu say "If the only things they got wrong in 4,000 pages was the rate of melting of glaciers on one mountain range, and the effect of deforestation of one forest that it will be amazing".

It wasn't, but as pointed out, what is worse is the knowing inclusion of errors and non-reviewed literature (or radio interview opinions as the case may be).

As for your attack on phoenix94, science may have changed over recent decades, but he is right that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is you who is wrong.

Go home.

PS.Good piece by Matt Ridley in the current Spectator on the global warming meltdown. It's amazing to see in their rear guard action, warmers conceding things that skeptics were once sought to be charged with crimes against humanity for saying.

whitmus: "I don't see anything about extracting a consensus."

True. But since they aren't going to write down what every person who has an opinion on the matter says, how else do you suggest they "reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage" as required by their charter?

whitmus: "How can you "represent" a consensus that you just said was itself only a political exercise of extraction."

Perhaps I used the word extraction loosely. I used it to mean "yield an agreement", as found in definition of consensus in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making : "Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement."

whitmus: "At a recent juvenile climate "party" I went to ... Rich and powerful? Make up your mind."

My mind is made up, whitmus. Why would you think I agree with your juvenile climate party?

whitmus: "knowing inclusion of errors and non-reviewed literature"

Depends on your definition of "knowing" I guess. Obviously the person who wrote it knew. But apparently sceptics such Dr. Vincent Gray and Fred Singer who reviewed the IPCC report let it stand. Are you saying they "knowingly" allowed its inclusion? Probably not. So how many of the 2500 odd expert reviewers had to know before it became "knowingly"? Do you have a clue how many knew? Again, probably not. Is this word "knowingly" some good looking adjective you found on a web site, which you decided to re-cycle without thinking too deeply about what it might mean?

whitmus: "he is right that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is you who is wrong."

A google search for pollutant yields this as the first definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant :

"A pollutant is a waste material that pollutes air, water or soil. Three factors determine the severity of a pollutant: its chemical nature, the concentration and the persistence. .. Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity (e.g. carbon dioxide, which is absorbed by plants and oceans)."

Obviously by that definition phoenix94 is wrong. CO2 is a fund pollutant.

There is no accurate glacial melt data on the whole of the Himalayas. They have yet to be studied that why the 2030 prediction is garbage . Indian scientists have now decided to study both east and west Himalayas, to rework the past work done in the east and for the first time find out facts about the west Himalayas. That may take 5 years to find out the answers at least because Indian Science is not what you obviously think it is cracked up to be. For example It does not have the credibility of the US Academy of Sciences reports on climate issues.

The question is will this new Indian research ibe reliable. I have been taking an India environment Journal for three years and the corruption reported by government agencies across the whole environment scene is a disaster. The story about the Indian scientists stuffing up was due to the fact that the whole of the Himalayas have never been studied just the western half. As a UK scientist pointed out . A New scientist editorial also suggests that the IPPC gets its act together .

Of course there are problems with the lastt IPPC report but that should l be fixed in the next report .

Alan Parker

The most amount of snow in Washington DC on record.

Divine intervention?

Record snowfall in Texas. Maybe we will now experience the mini ice age the 'scientists' predicted in the 70s.

Garrett's Environmental Jihad kills more Aussies than J Howard's war in Afghanistan. SHAME.

Still waiting for the left to REGULATE science. Their answer for just about anything.

Who else has started eating more eggs now that 'science' has decided they are good for you?

Australians who work outside have the lowest levels of skin cancer according to recent 'scientific' reports.

Anyone with a smidgen of crystalline intelligence could smell the stench of the AGW rat which emanated from the cauldron of the UN, the left, Malcolm Turnbull, the Greens, Populist Kevin, the unbiased media we are so blessed with along with the propensity of self righteous species haters to change the world.

The same crowd that espouses using other peoples money to loan to people who have a 'right' to own a home but can not pay the mortgage also truly believe the science of AGW is in, because they saw it on Hollywood's cinema screen, hallelujah brother. They also believe that saddling every American with a $45,000 + debt is an intelligent strategy. After all, the Enlightened Ones can save the world from financial and environmental collapse simultaneously and still have enough energy to deride those who believe all those fables in the Bible.

Does hubris create snow storms?