The title of the article needs to be changed to read:

"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".

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.

Roger Pielke (Jr) makes some valid points that deserve to be listened to, and taken up.

However, he does seem to "protest too much" - as if he got chided as a naughty boy and reacted in a tantrum.

Nevertheless, I would suggest we all grow up, take the criticisms on board, and make the required changes to the IPCC process. You can't change the science.

Unfortunately Roger didn't include the latest IPCC scandal: Pachauri's company Tata gets a billion pounds from Britain in carbon credits and immediately closes down a steelworks there in order to transfer the work to India!

Truly, these people must think they have found a magical money machine! Take a bow, Andy1, for it's your gullibility and that of people like you which is funnelling fortunes to these pack rats.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

The IPCC boat has too many holes in to remain afloat. Most of the loudest voices in the whole affair, Pachauri, Gore et al, are out for all the cash they can take. Too many mistakes have been made in reports. Data and graphs have been manipulated. The general public have, rightly, had a gut full of the whole business. The craziness in Australia only makes it worse. Our dear leader, KRudd, tells us this is the greatest dilemma ever faced by the world. He then swans off to Copenhagen with his courtiers and achieves bugger all. Next thing he is giving our Captain Bligh a big pat on the back for selling billions of dollars worth of coal to the Chinese. Go figure!

The comment is made that the bulk of IPCC AR4 is beyond dispute. RU sure?
Prof Phil Jones didn't include his later observation that the planet had not warmed for fifteen years. He didn't disclose how he ignored 4,500 temperature monitoring stations in cold and elevated locations so that the remaining 1,500 in warmer climates proved the warming hypothesis?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
If AR4 is still basically correct, how did D'Aleo and Watts- Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html find “Instrumental .temperature data . have been so widely tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant global warming in the 20th Century. All ..temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
It is only when data from the more southerly, warmer locations is used ..that an artificial warming is introduced”.
USA’s Contiguous Temperature Trends using NCDC raw & adjusted data.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
Dr Edward R. Long writes ‘The raw data shows a systematic treatment that causes the rural adjusted sets temperature rate of increase to be 5 fold more than that of the raw data’.
Who would want such scientists to defend them in a court of law?
The End of the IPCC by S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Feb 10, 2010
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_end_of_the_ipcc.html
…. all of these missteps pale in comparison to ClimateGate, which calls into question the very temperature data used by the IPCC's main policy result.

Quite telling Phoenix94 that not one of your links goes to a science journal. you have to remmebr that the bulk of this data goes through science journals first. Before it ever getts to the IPCC, care to show us your points from Science journals?