It should be really worrying that the findings of a 'totally respected' UN committee are supported by politicians: recognising a problem, business: behaving out of public interest, and religious groups: involving themselves in science. All, mind you trying to lead a lot of utterly sensible people: who are relying on and putting great faith the opinions of the UN, politicians, businessmen, and priests.

When does Santa and the tooth fairy join these highly credible groups.

Q&A,

There is NOTHING simple about the Earth's biospere or its DYNAMICS.
You are an extremely naive dilettante.

As for winning friends? The truth ALWAYS wins friends ... & offends. Sometimes it takes time. Application of state of the art mathematics is bound to take time to be accepted. But unless Perelman's proof (2006) of the Poincare conjecture is disallowed anytime soon, the way we look at the Earth's surface DYNAMICS (and the consequent human economic dynamics on that surface) is set to change.

Note, mathematics is one of the slowest disciplines to become enshrined in the everyday psyche due to the arcane nature of its proofs. But NOT this time. There is just too much of our near term future riding on this.

As for the IPCC. They haven't been dealing with a full deck (ENTROPY and PLUMES(Ricci Flows onto 3-S manifolds)).

DH is just exposing the tip of the iceberg of IPCC failure as it were.

A good article. Worthy of consideration, preferably after reading it. The infamous 'hockey stick' did great damage to any chance of balanced discussion. Certain things are undeniable. There most certainly was a Medieval Warming. Equally there certainly was a Little Ice Age. Because those two recent events happened when excellent information was collected about them and that is available to us we have very sound information as to the effects of them. To take the more recent, the Little Ice age, we KNOW that it had catastrophic effects on agriculture, on food prices etc. The numbers of people who died of starvation has been estimated to be in the millions. Now it is obvious that those recent events cannot possibly be ascribed to human use of carbon, it must be assumed that there have been other influences from within the Earth or from without. In view of the highly variable climatic history of our planet it is a certainty that there will be warmer and colder periods in the future, and there is nothing that any of us can do to prevent changes caused by such influences.
To what extent, if any, human carbon use will be a factor in such changes is not known. My guess is that it is only a small part of it. Yes, I said 'guess', so what, when I see estimates of the effects of climate change on agricuture here being between 15% and 79% then I reckon I'm entitled to make a stab in the dark as well!

This article homes in on important examples of the manner in which the IPCC has misled the public.

The method of the IPCC, is to produce a summary prepared by bureaucrats, before releasing the report by scientists upon which the summary purports to be based. This perverse process alone shows why the IPCC is not to be taken seriously.

David Holland clearly sets out how the process misleads, and shows the facility with which the errors are sustained by the culture of the IPCC. It is protective of those who have been exposed in flawed assertions.

The smoke screen which the Hockey stick supporters, even now, attempt to sustain in support of Mann’s position, is clarified.

Details of the obstructive methods used to impede investigation clear the mind as to how this organization operates.

Its ignoring of the lack of any basis for the assertion of the greenhouse theory, and the groundless stigmatising of human emissions, demonstrate the duplicity of this organisation.

This is the body which espouses the scurrilous Kyoto protocol. We should have nothing to do with it, but because of the undeserved reputation of the IPCC as an authority, we are committing ourselves to be bound to a program which has no authenticity in science, and is economically disastrous.

Climate change has existed from before the Ice Ages. There is a lot of money to be made by the present (man made) Climate Change industry. Are we being hoodwinked, and if so at what cost?

Maybe it isn't fashionable anymore, but don't Khun's notions of scientific paradigm's and revolutionary paradigm shifts capture some of what is being talked about? For their part scientists need the security of working within a paradigm to allow them to carry out detailed research within a model that is good enough (until it isn't).

Another thing to bear in mind, people who elect politicians and politicians mostly don't have the time to fully understand the scientific debate, politicians do not come across well if they are equivocal. They need a firm position. The confidence with which they conduct themselves is what gives the public faith in them, and hence the ability to lead.

The uncertainty that surrounds climate change is the nub of the issue, a paternalistic certainty of something bad needs to be feigned in order to make people contemplate the outside chance of something really catastrophic, and act to minimize this risk. Real politic not science.