More of the science touted by the IPCC is exposed in today's Australian_ " United Nations' blunder on glaciers exposed ".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171

The IPCC should resign en masse!

GrahamY,LATO, Q&A, Geaff Davies et all

There is no point just saying that the IPCC should resign en masse, or that it has been shown to be repeatably disfunctional etc.

The fact is that it is gearing up for another AR, and cannot and should not, be allowed to do so under the existing rules of operation and engagement.

I have under two previous posts herein, provided thirteen suggestions for change and improvement.

There may be more.

The thirteen need input from others as to the wording and finessing,which once done may provide a good basis for lobbying for change.

No matter where the balance of the judgement is as to the veracity of AGW, if the IPCC does a repeat performance under the existing rules, it will have no credibility at all, and just be a source of trouble, and a means for people like Gore and Pachauri to line their own pockets, at everyones expence and for there to be no real outcome either way.

Even as of this day there is more coming to light as to the extent of Pachauri conflicts of interest,for one example.

As a past Presidng Member for Statutory Board of Government required to declare at every mtg my pecuniary interests etc,( as is common practice ) what Pachuari is getting away with is stunning in its ramifications and just reflects upon the absolute incompetence of the UN.

We seem to be in a period of having doubt piled upon doubt.
In any other circumstances, whether it be in a court or in any other
area of decision, the protagonists would be sent back to do their work
again.

No matter how much anyone says there is plenty of supporting science
it seems that contrary papers have been suppressed, or their authors
not treated fairly.
Now we have glaciergate !

Considering the amount of wealth about to be poured into CO2 reduction
we really need to be sure what we are doing.
Set against taking CO2 action there are those that say it will be a
lot cheaper and easier to mitigate the effects as they occur.

protagoros - "Could someone please direct me to his Lordship's whereabouts?"

Sure, just Google "Monckton & Plimer Tour Australia: Dates & Venues"

Hopefully you'll be somewhere where you can get along to see his Lordship speak.

good luck!

For OLO-ers who may be interested in how the debate on this article is shaping up (and before the crowd departs for Geoff Davies 18 Jan OLO article on “Climategate”), here is my fairly close analysis of the first 133 posts from 49 different authors:

60 pro-Monckton’s views, 52 con-Monckton and 18 neutral (3 N/As).
Of the 60 pro-Monckton, 9 were about technical issues, 34 were only negative (“personal”) about other authors, scientists the IPCC or other institutions and 17 were both technical and personal. Of those 52 con-Monckton, 32 were technical, 7 were personal and 13 were both technical and personal. None of the neutrals were personal. 17 pro-Monckton referred (either directly or by implication) to other information sources such as URLs, books, videos etc whereas 25 con-Monckton had references and 6 of the neutrals had references.

I infer from this analysis that pro-Moncktons tend to state personally directed, unsubstantiated opinions and con-Moncktons tend to keep to the main subject in the article and cite other sources to support their views. However, there is a fair bit of cross-over by both groups that have made this a pretty lively debate.

By the way- my contributions were con-Monckton and were both personal and technical and both referenced and unreferenced.

jm, you might ask Graham how many flamers he removed, or didn't allow to post, for your interesting analysis to be valid in any way - otherwise, without that data it is cherry picked (and incomplete), is it not?

Isn't that what skeptics continually complain about, the incomplete or "tweaked" datasets?