>>Whilst that's possible, it's so implausible that you'd have to be pretty deluded to think it.<<

Have you lived in the real world? When you do, then explain to me how it's implausible. It's actually very plausible. And the more you go on with your Alice-in-Wonderland stuff, the easier you make it for them to continue to get away with it.

These days, it's more a case of can you spot a trusted public institution at all. Anywhere. Everyone's got their limits, including bureaucrats. Put enough pressure on and they will tow the line and do what is required.

Yes, I live in the real world. I live in the world where what counts as science is the work conducted by dedicated specialists in highly-regarded peer reviewed journals, such as Nature. You know, as opposed to the world where what counts is what is said by conservative political pundits and industry astroturfs, who hide behind misleading and disingenuous attacks, general concern trolling and teach the controversy fallacies. I live in the world where if we must, as laypeople, draw conclusions based on appeal to authority, that such authority ought to be connected to the real authorities on science, such as scientific institutions. I live in the world where the almost 100% error rate in regard to denialists claims, most assurdedly does counts against their credibility as a group. I live in a world where science is a self-correcting process, and where errors and problems with the IPCC process are exactly part of the process.

for BBoy:

There are so many adjectives, adverbs and highly-coloured nouns and verb in your last post that it is hard to know quite what you want to say. But what I could pick up worries me. Nature is peer-reviewed, but it serves as a rapid-news journal, where people can get stuff published quickly, without all the usual apparatus, if it is thought to be newsworthy. As the Climategate emails make very clear, those connected to the IPCC were determined to keep conflicting views out of the general peer-reviewed journals, even if, as Phil Jones wrote, they had to redefine what peer review meant. What is more, they seemed to be able to act as referees of papers at odds with their own, which is terrible practice on the part of the editorial staff of the journals.

If you want to engage in discussions about climate, why do you simply appeal to authority? What work have you done yourself to determine what is really the case? Science is not about authority or consensus: it is about testing hypotheses against observations. Against that standard, a lot of what passes as 'climate science' is not good science at all.

Your final point would be stronger had not those supporting the IPCC gone on at length about 2500 scientists involved, rigorous processes and exemplary sourcing. In fact, none of that is true, as the recent fusses show. The IPCC reports are as much political as they are scientific.

Well, Bboy, I will quote what Don Aitken said that what the CSIRO and BoM came out with is not news at all. If not news, then what is it in aid of? It's obviously a booster for a particular view that both those organisations want to promulgate. Is what they said a substantial scientific statement? Hardly. It's more of a political statement, is it not? So, why would a public service institution make a political statement?

My issue has got nothing to do with having a crack at scientific specialists BTW, but wondering why the statement had to be made at all. You might, however, be right. I'd be happy if you were.

Don Aitkin -
You are not a scientist either, so why to you criticise BBoy:
"If you want to engage in discussions about climate, why do you simply appeal to authority? What work have you done yourself to determine what is really the case? Science is not about authority or consensus"?
You have not done any of your own work, and you quote from a very biased selection of people on climate science.

You say "they seemed to be able to act as referees of papers at odds with their own, which is terrible practice on the part of the editorial staff of the journals."
It is normal, if annoying, in science peer review, for papers to be sent to those who disagree. That is the point. If that isn't done (and it's not always done) you can get little bandwagons of people who review each others' papers even though they're demonstrably wrong. This is the very thing people like you accuse climate scientists of doing.

As I have noted in our several private exchanges, you focus on picking at the supply of unresolved questions in climate science, which climate scientists to not deny, and claim the current judgement of climate scientists to be unjustified.

In making this claim you confuse the scientific debate with the policy debate, as I have pointed out to you. The scientific debate is not over. Yet we require, for policy purposes, an assessment of the situation as can best be judged with incomplete knowledge. This the IPCC has supplied: we are "very likely" to be causing global warming. This is not a scientific conclusion, it is a professional judgement, and is openly presented as such.

Yes, it is a political document. The IPCC is an *Intergovenmental* panel, and some of the governments have large vested interests in global warming being hidden. Governments like the Bush's US, Saudi Arabia, Canada and good ole Oz. The 4th report was watered down by those governments.

BBoy - although I haven't gone over the CSIRO/BoM report carefully my impression is that it has added nothing to the debate in all senses. Obviously temperatures have gone up over the past 50 years. Climate has changed. The real question has always been why has it changed - has human activity had any influence? The report does not seem to present any evidence on that point, merely pointing to various changes with the implication that human activity is in some way responsible. In other words, it does not counter any of the mounting criticisms made of the basic climate change thesis but, for some reason, the scientists involved seem to think that it does. We should ask why..