You may not be aware that Bishop Hill has a very interesting post up today in a similar vein called "Climate Sensitivity and the Stern Report." The post shows that the only empirical studies of climate sensitivity among the suite used by the IPCC were done by Forster & Gregory. These show a most likely estimate of climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of around 1.5 Deg C. In contrast, the IPCC ignored that result (likely the only realistic one) in favour of models and published that climate sensitivity lies in the range of 2 to 4.5 deg C, with a most likely of 3.5 deg. This is clearly chosen to create the most alarm possible among the population without any real basis.

The IPCC is (again) being shown up as an activist organisation, promoting alarmist nonsense. Unfortunately, they have had the ear of governments, learned societies, Climate Commission, CSIRO etc for far too long. It is high time that rather than these bodies uncritically accepting the pronouncements from on high of the activist IPCC, scientists actually look at the real data and information.

At the very least Anthony and Jo provide compelling evidence that the science is NOT settled, and that there is actually no consensus. And of course, even if there was, that doesn't trump evidence.

A consensus is "defeated" by one bit of 'evidence'?

There's an "AGW rule"?!

This pseudo-argument is a misrepresentation of both consensus and the principles of science - it's a straw-man.

"This pseudo-argument is a misrepresentation of both consensus and the principles of science - it's a straw-man."

No's it not.

Consensus is the mainstay of AGW; every advocate of AGW, from Oreskes to Gore uses consensus to 'prove' AGW.

There have been 2 'consensus' studies which are relied on to prove every scientist supports AGW.

The first is by Doran and Zimmerman; it is hopeless; it has no methodology and is almost as bad as the latest Lewandowsky effort to prove "deniers" don't believe the moon landing. There are many critiques of the Zimmerman junk; one of them is here:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf

The other 'consensus' 'study' has greater academic pretensions and was coauthored by the late Stephen Schneider:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

The Schneider effort is also junk; it is predicated on the validity of peer review; peer review in climate studies, however, has no credibility given the email revelations about prominent climate scientists striving to prevent contrary papers from being published; and the history of the Steig/ O'Donnell papers demonstrates this corruption perfectly:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100075232/realclimategate-hits-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-peer-review/

Your comment McReal, is a lazy, arrogant stupid comment; just like AGW science really; and anything but real.

There is only one rule and that is;

"There are no rules."

If you want to prove AGW and you have eyes, can read, have a computer, then look no further than the rapid melting of the arctic ice.
At the rate it melted this year it will be evident even to the most blinkered that AGW is here now.

"Arctic ice" proof of AGW. Not so.

There is very strong evidence that there is a polar oscillation, probably based on AMO variation, whereby when the Arctic ice is low the Antarctic is commensurably higher:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/correlation-between-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-anomalies/

Currently the Antarctic ice levels are the greatest on record.

The Arctic ice levels were at similar levels during the 1930's and have been much less at various times during the past 9000 years;

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

Looks like you are blind, can't read or use a computer Robert; my sympathies.