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?

Phoenix94
Try going to some of the original sources rather than relying exclusively on daily fishwrappers like the Daily Mail and sites like Science and Public Policy and American Thinker. None of these sites would publish a balanced article if they were put on the rack.
The original Jones interview is available at the BBC site at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm: here is the relevant section:

Question: "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.

Question: "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"

Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

Don't you understand that certainty decreases with reduction in sample size? With a "sample" down of 2 years, you could show either dramatic cooling or warming, depending on which two years were chosen- but the statistical significance would be close to zero.

...are you amenable to hearing the original stuff, or do you prefer to just re-broadcast these convenient lies?

Kenny, why would we want to go to science journals?

Don't you remember, the CRU, & the rest of the mob got control of what was printed in them, or have you not read the e mails? I suppose, like Examinator, & Qanda, you don't read them, to avoid seeing the truth.

Ok Hasbeen, you ask us to be specific, why can't you?

1. Which journals are you referring to? Dates or volume numbers would be a good start.

2. What mob?

Incidentally, what makes you think I haven't read the emails?

Sure, some are sloppy - but hey, they're just as sloppy as those between McIntyre, Watts and Inhofe.

And in no way do they diminish the overall conclusions.

______

And, did you finally go to the BOM site and see the truth, you asked for it, remember? Let me guess, you didn't understand it (and not a word about AGW).

Jedi
It is interesting that you still see Phil Jones and the IPCC as “balanced” .

Phil Jones’s interview has a lot more than first meet the eye –especially if you're one-eyed( like you and qanta).

This is what you saw:
<<Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."In other words, it has gotten warmer, despite what the deniers want to say.”>>

But what you didn’t see, through your one green eye was the second half of that section that read. <<[from] 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative(-0.12C per decade)>> –funny how you missed that bit!

And in view of the reversal of trend, it’s only fair I return the compliment: “In other words, it has gotten [cooler], despite what the [alarmists] want to say”.

So what does it all show? Only, that climate is not static it bounces around-and its not all one-way(much to you and qanta’s disappointment)And there is little-to-no correlation between CO2 and climate warming.

Qanta
Re <<Sure, some are sloppy - but hey, they're just as sloppy as those between McIntyre, Watts and Inhofe>>

Ah but you miss the point, qanta.
That, others were sloppy, we already knew, because the IPCC & its acolytes, like you, already told us so (a thousand times or more).
What (supposedly) distinguished the IPCC & it’s spokespersons from, those others, was that the IPCC-side had nothing to hide.
Actually your story went something like this : “everybody's got something to hide except me and my monkey”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lngGPsJ1pQ

But NOW we know different . The Himalayan glacier prognostications were not only, NOT peer reviewed, they were based on hearsay.
And you can’t write it off as an accident (as much as you’d like to).

An accident is a different beast altogether .An accident is a where circumstances conspired to make you do something you didn’t intend .
The Glacier report was chosen ,proof read and intentionally printed.The mistake lay only in the IPCC believing they could get away with it. And they almost did. It sat in the IPCC report for months –and none of you eagle-eyed seekers of truth noticed –or leastways dared to mention it.

But when it was exposed . The true IPCC believers moved overnight from denial mode to ‘well it’s all to be expected” mode.

To hors from qanta

3000 + pages

2500 + scientists

1000 + research papers

You get the drift ...

I'm surprised there are so few errors - it's a mammoth task!

Tell you what, give them a buzz and let them know they haven't got a friggin clue about the science.

No Hors, not the IPCC (they are just the messengers trying to collate the stuff) - buzz the scientists that actually do the research and tell them where they have got it all wrong.

(Ssshhhhhh - listen up Hors, this is a secret between you and me - changes to the IPCC process is needed, and will happen. But guess what, you can't change the science ... no matter how much you want to, that wouldn't be, well, umm, er ... science)

It seems qancka hasn't read your post Horus, and reacts with a tantrum, like what he falsely accuses Roger of throwing in the first. A fine article and a merciful recommendation, especially considering the treatment he has received from Rachunder Pauchari and the IPCC, and the inherent corruption.

Qanka,

About glaciers and fraud: correct me if I'm wrong, but I learnt that adiabatic temperature falls about one degree F for every three hundred feet increase in altitude.

Himalayan glaciers reach down to what ? 10,000 feet ? and are formed as high as 18-20,000 feet ? I'm sure I'm wrong on the details but you get the drift: that as temperatures rise generally one degree F, including in the Himalayan region, glaciers there would retreat 300 feet in altitude. At that rate, a temperature rise of around 25 to 30 degrees F would be necessary to melt all the glaciers in the Himalayas. The IPCC claimed that those glaciers would all be gone by 2035, 25 years from now (requiring a warming rate of one degree per year. Even if my figures are a bit shonky, glacial extinction is clearly 300-500 years away if the world does nothing about AGW - that's if the IPCC's warming claims are accurate.

But what do I know ? Not much, but enough not to put my money on the IPCC.

Mouth
They're not all going to melt away anytime soon - but you knew that.
Look over there ... another IPCC spelling mistake (joke)

Spelling mistake ? Misplacement of the odd digit ? My point is, who - out of the thousands of climate scientists allied to the IPCC - checked the calculations ? If all the Himalayan glaciers were to melt in the next thirty-odd years, don't you think that some scientists would have double-checked the data ? 25 years - the implications of which would be truly horrendous for Asian economies - or 350 years or whatever, and nobody checked ?

If somebody claimed, say, that sea-levels would rise, not half a metre in the next fifty years, but ten metres, or if somebody claimed that surface temperatures were to rise not one degree in the next fifty years but fifteen degrees, wouldn't you expect someone to check, perhaps an undergraduate oceanography or meteorology student ? I guess they would have more expertise than Mr Pachauri, so why wouldn't they be put to work checking such horrendous predictions ?

This has all been a valuable lesson (Popper-wise) in teaching us that we should always check our data, even - especially - if they seem favourable to our own hypotheses.

You sound like Mr Faulty, Loudmouth.
I understood your point.
You apparently not mine.
Yes, we know ... and we are.

Let me be more clear ... Fawlty.