Grim, you should know about 'bait and switch'.

See comments again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9844#158759

The operative word is 'franchise'.

The list you provide (which is most definitley incomplete) is NOT a list of 'franchises' - although some may like to think otherwise.

Indeed, the list you provide is commonly used to exemplify scientific bodies that are engaged not only in scientific fraud, but a world-wide conspiracy.

And the thousands of scientists contributing research to the latest assessment? Complete bunkem, they obviously don't stack up to independent peer review by the 'petition'.

It is apparent that 'anti-science' is rearing its ugly head and is manifested (for example) by inaction on 'climate change'.

Happy New Year guys:
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Peer Review?
" In addition, a paper published in the premier scientific journal Science describes a survey of peer review journals from 1993-2003 containing the words “global climate change”. Of the 928 papers surveyed not a single paper disagreed with the scientific consensus. Naomi Oreskes describes her paper via an op-ed in the Washington Post.

We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.”

Grim, many thanks for your great list. Now tell me which of these “scientific opinions” made it into the IPCC assessment?

Q&A, you should be able to help Grim with this one?

Just in passing Q&A, do you wish to restate the credibility of the IPCC? If I remember rightly these were based upon “Consensus”, “Peer Review”, “Data Integrity”, Modeling” “Scientific Qualifications” and “Evidence Based Forecasting”?

When you’re ready.