What indeed should we do about the IPCC.
As of 2012, the IPCC had an annual budget of just $7 million dollars (US), of which the US contributed about half. The IPCC has a permanent staff of just 11 people.
By comparison, Australia has just awarded a $50 million contract to a Norwegian firm to find a plane that doesn't even belong to us, on top of God knows how much has already been spent, in dollars and man hours.
$7m to address a problem that is and will affect every living thing on this planet. Sounds like a bargain to me.
All scientific and statistical evidence used in IPCC reports has been contributed voluntarily by thousands of scientists from all over the world, yet the hard 'righties' insist we should give more credibility to the handful of dissenting scientists, almost all of whose incomes can be traced to global corporations with a large stake in maintaining the status quo; including unfortunately such highly respected, honest and trustworthy media barons as Rupert...
According to recent polls, 46% of Republicans and even 25% of Tea Partyers believe in Human induced climate change; not bad considering the number of religious nutters who flock to that side of politics.
While weather (and by extension, climate) may be too chaotic to make absolutely accurate predictions about, the physics is conclusive. As Tony153 points out, more energy is entering system Earth than is leaving. Indeed, since 2000 our climate has accumulated the energy equivalent of over 1.9 billion Hiroshima bombs; the figure is rising at the rate of about 3 Hiroshima bombs a second.
Today, about the only people who refuse to accept the science are religious nutters, those with a vested interest (or concerned about their tax dollars being used for purposes not for their immediate benefit) or those whose instant reaction to any news not to their liking is invariably:
“It's all a Communist plot!”
Only ideologues believe there is any place for ideology in science.

"....But I don't respond to people who simply dismiss what I say because I am not a natural scientist, or because others have said the opposite and I must be wrong...."

Which is why Don's articles gain traction on OLO - a site avoided these days by most with credentials in any of the disciplines associated with climate.

The upshot is that in places like OLO, devoid of scientific expertise on the subject, these types articles are debated on ideology - not on science.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/mps-who-reject-science-are-undermining-public-interest

"....It is perhaps not surprising that Lilley, who juggles his job as an MP with a part-time post as vice-chairman of Tethys Petroleum, continues to reject the findings of mainstream climate research...."

"....Lilley studied natural sciences and economics.... and Stringer graduated in chemistry."

Not an oceanographer or atmospheric physicist in sight....

Poirot,

Mon ami, it's all part of the game corporate polluters have played since the start of the Industrial Revolution, protect profits and transfer the costs of externalities to the taxpayers. Their advantages are very deep pockets and a gullible public.

so pathetic that the warmist generally are those that have ignored/denied threat of Islam and continue on wanting to waste money/time on trying to defend their atrocious record of predictions, fraudulent use of money and very twisted view of science. The gw religion certainly has left them in their own little imagined world. Still I suppose the deceivers/frauds still push the evolution myth in schools and unis.

Yada, yada, yada, runner.

You're the guy who thinks Evolution is crock.

Next....

Hello Poirot,

You are correct with respect to no oceanographers or atmospheric physicists being in sight - of any of the Energy and Climate Change Committee membership.

From www.parliament.uk - "The Energy and Climate Change Committee is appointed by the British House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and its associated public bodies. It has 11 Members and is chaired by Mr Tim Yeo MP."

From Wikipedia - "Yeo was educated at Charterhouse School, before going on to Emmanuel College at Cambridge University where he read History and graduated in 1968. At university he "did no work, got a poor degree and adored it". And "From 1970-73, Yeo was Assistant Treasurer of Bankers Trust Company. Then, from 1975-86, he was a Director of Worcester Engineering Company. From 1980-83, he was Chief Executive of the Spastics Society (now known as Scope}.

Nope - not a scientist at all. And neither were any of the other 8 MPs who disagreed with Lilley and Stringer and voted to accept the IPCC's report.

Mr Aitkin is quite correct in pointing out the significance of Lilley and Stringer's dissension, ie. 100% of those with scientific credentials in the commitee rejected acceptance of the IPCC report. Now that's the sort of inane cherry-picked overwhelming empirical evidence the likes of warmists enjoy throwing around. 100% scientific consensus!

Impressive, is it not?

No, not really, but then neither is the 97% rubbish.

The significance here is that none of the other 9 on the committee, all MPs, who accepted the IPCC report, had any scientific credentials whatsoever.

The point is that this entire opinion piece is only about the politics of climate - not the science, and I believe that that was Mr Aitkin's purpose in his writing it.

Cheers.