Quanda.
"Some people are disaffected with the IPCC. However, that does not make its processes, rigor or conclusions any less robust".

"Disaffection" would have to be a catastrophic understatement surely.

I do believe you may have just nailed exactly and precisely the answer to Poirots' "interested in the sway "skeptics" have on the media, the public at large - and in consequence, the politicians.

Would 'The Delinquent Teenager' ring any bells here? And Ms Laframboise is just the tiny tip of an ever increasing iceberg.

Posted by voxUnius
NASA Science News
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate
___________________________________________________________________________
Interesting article
It suggests to me that based on a reduction of sunspot numbers one would expect a small decline in global temperatures since the 1980s. This is clearly not what has happened. So either this idea is wrong or AGW is overwhelming the potential reduction in temperatures

Prompete,

"...And Ms Laframboise is just just the tiny tip of an ever increasing iceberg."

http://desmogblog.com/donna-laframboise

Yes, I admit it's difficult to argue against the climate expertise of someone who holds a degree in women's studies.

Then, again, that's par for the course...I'm supposing that the predominant qualification for the "loudest" "skeptics" is that they shouldn't hold an actual qualification in regard to climate science.

Poirot. I don't think it is necessary to be a climate scientist to have the research skills to look up references do you? And to use Peter Gleik as a reliable referee of her book is a bit of a stretch really, isn't he the bloke that admitted to misrepresenting himself, told untruths etc?

The IPCC itself said, following a review of the glaciagate accident/misprint that it would 'fix' its "processes, rigor or conclusions". I have found no evidence that it has done so.

My point is that the I am one of those "disaffected with the IPCC" for the very reason that IPCC conclusions are based, to an unacceptable extent, on material submitted and accepted by contributors as Identified by Ms Laframboise.. Woodward and Bernstien wer not politicians either.

You wonder how those that question the 'consensus' have such sway in the argument and or media? Perhaps way back then, when A Gores film was found to contain exaggerations and inaccuracies, and a series of 'mistakes', failed predictions, hidden algorithms that only produce hockey sticks etc etc all compound.

Your link to Desmogblog contains a raft of comments about Lafomboise background etc etc. try as I might, I could not find anywhere where her actual results/conclusions were refuted. The link is just a long ad hom smear.

How could I be anything but disaffected with the IPCC when it has demonstrated itself to be so very 'anti-science'?

Prompete,

You're right - how could you be anything but disaffected by the IPCC?

Why in the world would you believe the scientists on the matter of climate science?

That would be downright silly when it's so much easier, entertaining and self-confirming to give credence to those without the qualifications who assert that the IPCC and its contributing scientists are fraudulent.

Glib generalisations claiming climate scientists maintain that "the science is settled" or notions that they are not continuously reassessing the data - your comment that the IPCC is "anti-science" are stock-in-trade for "skeptics".

For me, "skeptic rant" is most interesting - as is the utilisation of a whole raft of devices, and just plain ignorant pig-headedness to oppose the science.

Que sera sera

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-12/climate-commission-predicts-more-heatwaves-bushfires/4461960

Prompete:

"The IPCC itself said, following a review of the glaciagate accident/misprint that it would 'fix' its "processes, rigor or conclusions.

I have found no evidence that it has done so."

You obviously haven't been following, or looking. Rather, you just shoot from the hip. Start here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_review.shtml#.UPC3hGckKSo

Do yourself a favour and read the embedded links, then see the final AR5 ... when it's officially released.

"How could I be anything but disaffected with the IPCC when it has demonstrated itself to be so very 'anti-science'?"

Sorry Prompete, your statement demonstrates that you don't understand the scientific method, and reveals your own "anti-science" bias.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt, you are conflating (unintentionally) the problems of the UNFCCC with the IPCC. It's not unusual, many 'non-scientists' do exactly just that.