examinator, there is little dispute that good research is taking place on a global scale, the seemingly endless streams of pro and anti links provide testimony to this. However, the discussion is not about these, this thread is about the credibility of the IPCC and its lead authors.

It’s interesting that IPCC assessments are no longer quoted? Back to square one, more and more like minded links. This is testimony to the fact that the AGW movement can no longer present a credible IPCC case.

Before you can present a credible case you must repair the credibility gap. This means addressing the fundamental issues of “Consensus, Peer Review, Impeachable Professionals, Procedural Compliance, Good Data, Certified Computer Programs and State of the Art Modeling. Only this can restore credibility to their output, it serves no purpose to try to “substitute” the IPCC assessments.

We could disband the IPCC and its lead authors, but that would mean opening up the AGW issue from ground zero. That however, would mean a different set of “terms of reference” that would return science to its rightful domain, free of politics and causes.

The only people trying to save the IPCC at the moment seem to be the commentariat. Curious is it not?

The origins of collective movements are based upon tribal instincts, the powerful “need” to belong. Those in our society who feel in some way “disenfranchised”, for a variety of possible reasons, are those most likely to feel the need to belong. This goes some way to explaining the selecting of “champions” for your cause.

The AGW cause is losing “Champions” at an alarming rate. This is why it is significant that the movement is relying on journalists to defend the cause until some new champions can be found or the old ones can be resurrected.

Seems like you have elected to look for new champions

"why are you slumming with these denialist loons?"

bushbasher asks

"pericles. you're very smart and very thoughtful"

bushbasher answers his own question

"i don't get it"

bushbasher sums up

yes, we can see that, at least you admit it, while many just dig in, regardless of the obvious evidence.

The UN and IPCC methods are flawed and the CRU emails, "do not appear to reveal fraud", appear is a weak word when clearing anyone of doubt isn't it?

Let's wait for some of the more formal investigations and see what they reveal.

Geoff Davies piece is disingenuous and misleading. In it he claims that Jones at the CRU said in an email he had found a “trick” to “hide the decline” shown in Briffa’s tree ring proxy temperature reconstruction and that the analysis, “was deliberately fudged arises from a misunderstanding.”

Steve McIntyre, an IPCC reviewer, has stated, “Jones deleted the post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction, replaced them with instrumental values, smoothed the spliced series and ended up with a reconstruction that looked like an accurate reconstruction of late 20th century temperatures.”

Briffa’s temperature reconstruction shows a decline post 1960, countervailing the notion of AGW. Readers can compare what was deleted by image googling “hide the decline” + graph.

McIntyre continues: “The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working on in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email.”

One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report (McIntyre) specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline: “show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR [third assessment report]; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18).”

The IPCC’s reponse was, “Rejected though note divergence issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Biffra et al. series.”

Rather than discussing this divergence openly in a scientic manner this act was a deliberate attempt by the scientists involved, and by the IPCC, to delete what they felt was inappropriate for others to see, a decline in this proxy temperature reconstruction that might, one can suppose, lead one to question the reliability of tree ring proxy temperature reconstructions, or even the notion of global warming.

Like parts of this article this is obfuscation through omission, tantamount in the scientific world as fraud.

I came across this the other day. It is from the letters of Darwin and shows how good scientists ought to deal with conflicting opinions and divergent data http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2931.

I'm afraid I'm with the majority of commenters on this thread. Nice try Geoff, but it doesn't accord with the facts. I'd also note from a pollster's point of view that while Pew does some interesting work it is generally regarded as being skewed in a left of centre direction when it gets into the area of analysis of political issues.

In another essay on OLO Stephen Keim suggested that a legal action might sort out the differences between Plimer and Monbiot. I think it more likely and more appropriate that a legal action sort the Climategate issues out. You're not going to get anything out of most other sorts of inquiries, short of a royal commission, because they tend to feel socially constrained.

Graham wrote:

"In another essay on OLO Stephen Keim suggested that a legal action might sort out the differences between Plimer and Monbiot".

It is now 35 days since George Monbiot accused Ian Plimer of LYING and FABRICATION. The accusation was delivered on national television.

Monbiot repeated his accusation on the Guardian website.

If untrue Monbiot's accusations are clearly defamatory. When it comes libel or slander cases England is probably the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in the English speaking world. English courts would have jurisdiction since the accusations were repeated in an English newspaper.

To succeed in litigation Plimer does not have to prove the science in his book, "Heaven and Earth" is correct. The onus is on Monbiot and any other defendants to prove that Plimer was telling DELIBERATE untruths and FABRICATING evidence. This is a heavy burden for any defendant to meet.

On the face of it the odds would be stacked in Plimer's favour were he to sue. Yet so far Plimer, a man who has been ready to resort to the courts in the past, has refrained from suing.

What does that indicate about Plimer's confidence in his own book?

Clearly Monbiot was challenging Plimer to sue. He made it easy for him.

Equally clearly Plimer has failed to meet the challenge. Could it be that Plimer feels Monbiot could mount a successful defence?

>> I'm afraid I'm with the majority of commenters on this thread.

well, knock me over with a feather.