I come to this very late, and with the feeling that I have encountered it all before. But, in brief, the IPCC was founded on the premise that human-induced climate change was a problem, and its job is to say what the current scientific solutions to that problem might be. It does not entertain the prospect that human-induced climate change is of small consequence, though there is a lot of argument and evidence that would support such a position. I wouldn't expect it to do otherwise, anymore than I would expect a professor of climate change to say that it was all nature's doing, or a history professor to say that history is bunk, or the head of a government department of the environment to say that things were fine out there.

But I do scratch my head at the unwillingness of the IPCC to release perfectly straightforward information unless the seeker goes to the trouble and expense of FOI. I have always thought that in research the data are made available so that others can do their version of the experiment. The climate change industry seems to me replete with people who sit on their own data and avoid open and frank discussion. When I see that I don't see science at its best. I may not be looking at good science at all. Harris and McLean have at least found out some of the numbers. That they had to do it this way is no credit to the IPCC.

And to be told that by saying things like this I am a 'denier', with its Holocaust colouring, makes me even surer that what I am looking at is tawdry and wrong.

Don Aitkin wrote: "The climate change industry seems to me replete with people who sit on their own data and avoid open and frank discussion."

By saying "industry" I assume you trying to imply this absurd conspiracy theory that the majority of climate change scientists are trying to hoodwink the world for more cash. This is tin foil hat stuff. Name these individual climate change scientists that are "sitting on their own data" and back it up with hard evidence. I'm sure we can find their data in the journals for you.

Don Aitkin: "It [IPCC] does not entertain the prospect that human-induced climate change is of small consequence."

Demonstrably wrong - the IPCC's findings say that there is a chance that climate change is not human-induced, but they assign a low probability to that prospect. Something like: "90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface" was it not?

Sams: "Name these individual climate change scientists that are "sitting on their own data" and back it up with hard evidence."

Michael Mann could hardly be said to have been cooperative, even trying to claim intellectual property rights, before he was reluctantly compelled by the US govt to make data available . Then there's Phil Jones and his infamous quote: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it." (Kellow, A. Science & Public Policy, 2007)

sams: "Don Aitkin: "It [IPCC] does not entertain the prospect that human-induced climate change is of small consequence."

Demonstrably wrong - the IPCC's findings say that there is a chance that climate change is not human-induced, but they assign a low probability to that prospect."

You seem to have miscomprehended. Aitken's statement is about the consequences of human-induced climate change, not its probability.

* commentator has no links to Big Oil, evil Think Tanks, or the "Matrix". His lowly qualifications should render his comments easily dispatched with by relevant counter-claims, logic, reason, evidence, and the like.

The IPCC is simply another organisation committed to its own agenda Although it enlists scientists it is not about proper science because its task has been to accumulate evidence to support a specific belief that all changes in the climate are caused by human interference with the atmosphere. This IPCC can only operate as a belief in belief system where the WILL to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the WILL to find out. Belief addicts are easy pickings for big business because there simply is an endless supply of deadheads that can only be sold the thizzle and not the sausage.

The thizzle is this underlying all pervasive bias away from studies of natural climate change to a grossly exaggerated anthropocentric minset that assumes that humanity is the weather maker and the cause of all earth's climate. There is no discovery process here because all are involved in an outcome directed pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen. All that can be expected as a result is that they find themselves.

What is honest science then? If I can put it another way, good scientific knowledge is learned, by studying those things that do not fit what you expected. e.g. We want the observed details, and want to know WHY this particular data set is not conforming to the conventional theories. That is what honest science is all about ..... discovery. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

In this respect we should recognise integrity in a scientist. Dr Vincent Gray is one such scientist.

Don Aitkin once again misrepresents the reason why the IPCC was set up. The IPCC was set up to assess "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change." It was not founded on the assumption that AGW was a problem.

Aitkin accuses the IPCC scientists of being "quasi-religous", but complains when he gets called a "denier".

for Sams: Perhaps 'replete' was the wrong word, but Michael Mann, Dr Jones and the IPCC itself were the notable cases I had in mind, now mentioned by another contributor. If the science is that good, why the defence? It isn't that good, and relies far too much on models and not on observation. Th IPCC is pushing a case.

That the IPCC does not entertain the prospect that such change is of small consequence. You rather missed the point, as someone else has pointed out, but even if I interpret what I wrote your way, its probabilities have no basis in observation, and mean nothing. That those who wrote that passage were 90 per cent certain tells us something about their state of mind, but nothing directly about climate.

For TimLambert: I would interpret what you put in quotes as implying that AGW was a problem. Certainly the IPCC has acted as though that were the case.

'quasi-religious' As occurs so often you do not quote me correctly. This is what I wrote:

'One [reason] is that some of the senior people in and around the IPCC — one might call
them ‘scientist-activists’ — are convinced that unless the world wakes up to itself
humanity will not have a future. I would call this a quasi-religious view, and it is
the basis of the view that ‘the end justifies the means’, a doctrine that I think has
no place in a democracy.' It is easy enough to name names if you want me to, and I gave two examples in the paper. 'Some of the senior people...' is not the same as 'the IPCC scientists'. This sloppiness in argument is really pathetic.

Have you considered that by calling people who don't agree with you 'deniers' you are acting as the mediaeval Inquisition acted. with the supposition that 'Truth' is within you and will prevail? The reality of AGW is not of the same status as the reality of the Holocaust. I do object to being called a 'denier', but I'm puzzled that you don't see its implications for you.