The history of medieval witch hunts tells how, from the flimsiest pretexts, such as a word out of context or an obscure statement, a libel has been issued against an entire group - with dire consequences.

In the case of climate change and climate science, instead of looking at authentic data sets by the world's premier science organizations (temperatures, precipitation, droughts, extreme weather events, migration of fauna and flora around the globe), advocates of the pro-carbon polution lobby are

PLAYING THE MAN INSTEAD OF THE BALL.

Basically they will not accept any evidence, claiming scientists are not telling the truth.

Why don't they go to climate change affected regions to witness the evidence for themselves?

They studiously ignore is that, even where errors occur, Science is a self-correcting method, as contrasted with the disinformation and manufacture of "data" by some of the pro-carbon pollution lobby, which are rarely highlighted in the media.

In the case of the IPCC, the fact remains that many of its future projections constitute CONSERVATIVE UNDERESTIMATES, as evidenced by the rates of change of Arctic and Antarctic ice melt and of sea level rise.

Major changes in attitude on the part of the public, governments and corporation are needed, in view of the mountain of evidence for dangerous climate change, if humanity wishes to ensure a future for its young and future generations.

Robert Watson's article is well reasoned - but it will not remove hands from ears, or open tightly shut eyes.
It certainly won't stop the screaming "I can't hear you!"

Watson is correct to at least this extent, the series of errors and omissions found to date in the 2007 report in themselves and individually are not so important. But to date on at least two instances - glaciers and rain forests - the IPCC authors are known to have simply grabbed activist material and chucked it into the report. In at least another part of the report, that of tropical diseases, the panel authors ignored the leading experts in the field and went with the worst forecasts they could find.
To then suggest that panel authors are conservative in their assessments is patently ludicrous. If Watson really wanted to defend the IPCC he should have taken a different tack.
None of this really affects the core of the report, the temperature forecasts, but those 2007 forecasts were based on decade old emission scenarios that even in 2007 had obvious problems - problems that were not corrected - left out magnetic solar activity which is now acknowledged by all sides to affect climate, and depend greatly on an assumption concerning relative humidity in the atmosphere.. and the science is still sound!
Watson would have done much better to acknowledge the obvious problems, and promise that the IPCC will be completely overhauled, as well as agree to submit its work to a truely independent body before release.

Andy1 writes

'Why don't they go to climate change affected regions to witness the evidence for themselves?'

Don't you know that Australia is used as a prime example of man made climate change? The problem is that almost every prediction made by the High Priests over the last 10 years has proven to be false. People visiting Bondi beach or the Great Barrier Reef for the last 60 years know that these high priests are simply playing politics using scaremongering tactics to achieve their own political purposes. It seems like being made Australian or pope of the year allows you to make the most ludicrous statements and be ignored no matter how wrong you are.

It is not just minor facts that the corrupt IPCC got wrong. They have been fraudulent, unscientific and deceitful and the author still wants us to have confidence in the 'science.'

And to think that Mr Rudd and Turnbull were almost allowed to add a big tax on people for this fraud is absolutely disgraceful.

"The IPCC concluded that the global temperature data and analyses are robust.."

And Microsoft concludes that we all need Windows, and the Labor Party concludes that we should have socialised medicine. Well, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, they would, wouldn't they?

Once we have a few genuinely independent inquiries instead of the current round of whitewashing then we will be in a position to say what's 'robust' and what isn't. But things aren't looking good for the AGW alarmists...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

Can any but fellow travellers believe this guy? What a pile of rubbish.

When, & only when, every bit of research, every algorithm, & every bit of raw data is released to the world, freely available to all, will there be any chance of this lot regaining any traction.

Of course, those of them who have been, or should have been, found guilty of fraud are excluded.