[xoxoxoBruce]

Now we have a graph that show the mean temperature has been swinging up and down for as long as they can speculate. The actual temperatures are questionable because the data come from one place in the Antarctic and are accepted because nobody can disprove them, but we do know the temperature and precipitation wasn't uniform the world over, and the temp precip ratio determines the tracer.
That the co2 sample follows the temperature swings is not a surprise either, nor is it indicative of causation.


The honesty of the government has been called into question. From the Union of Concerned Scientists;
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...l-warming.html

As Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in 2001,
" The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable."

UCS agrees with the world's leading climate scientists that the Earth's temperature is rising and that its climate has changed over the last century. The scientific consensus is clear that the rise in temperature and change in climate are being caused in part by human activities.

Mainstream media are beginning to reflect this scientific consensus. But after a decade of controversial reporting and public debate, some skepticism lingers in the public at large and is still rampant among industry groups and their proponents who fear adverse economic impacts from taking action on global warming.
While their main tactic now is to dismiss potential solutions to the problem -- in particular the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change -- climate skeptics continue to attack the science in order to undermine an essential and rational basis for cost-effective, sustainable action on this global problem.

But what does it mean to have scientific consensus about a future that is never certain in a world so utterly complex?

"The scientific consensus is clear that the rise in temperature and change in climate are being caused in part by human activities." I didn't think anyone disagreed with that, just wanted to have the effect quantified. How do we act unless we know what things we are doing are causing what?
Now the "government stooges" side.
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/23.html

Modification of the Scientific Text After Completion of the SPM (Summary for Policymakers)
The SPM results from a discussion between the lead authors and government representatives (including also some non-governmental organizations and industry representatives). This discussion, combined with the requirement for consistency, results in some modifications of the text, all of which were carefully documented by the IPCC. This process has resulted in some concern that the scientific basis for the SPM might be altered. To assess this potential problem, the committee solicited written responses from U.S.
coordinating lead authors and lead authors of IPCC chapters, reviewed the WGI draft report and summaries, and interviewed Dr. Daniel Albritton who served as a coordinating lead author for the IPCC WGI Technical Summary. Based on this analysis, the committee finds that no changes were made without the consent of the convening lead authors and that most changes that did occur lacked significant impact. However, some scientists may find fault with some of the technical details, especially if they appear to underestimate uncertainty. The SPM is accompanied by the more representative Technical Summary (TS). The SPM contains cross-references to the full text, which unfortunately is not accessible until a later date, but it
does not cross-reference the accompanying TS.

And at the same link a statement explaining how the IPCC works and sometimes can't get the brightest & best, on board.

The IPCC as Representative of the Science Community
The IPCC process demands a significant time commitment by members of the scientific community. As a result, many climate scientists in the United States and elsewhere choose not to participate at the level of a lead author even after being invited. Some take on less time-consuming roles as contributing authors or reviewers. Others choose not to participate. This may present a potential problem for the future. As the commitment to the assessment process continues to grow, this could create a form of self-selection for the participants. In such a case, the community of world climate scientists may develop cadres with particularly strong feelings about the outcome: some as favorable to the IPCC and its procedures and others negative about the use of the IPCC as a policy instrument. Alternative procedures are needed to ensure that participation in the work of the IPCC does not come at the expense of an individual's scientific career.
In addition, the preparation of the SPM involves both sci-enlists and governmental representatives. Governmental representatives are more likely to be tied to specific government postures with regard to treaties, emission controls, and other policy instruments. If scientific participation in the future becomes less representative and governmental representatives are tied to specific postures, then there is a risk that future IPCC efforts will not be viewed as independent processes.
The United States should promote actions that improve the IPCC process while also ensuring that its strengths are maintained. The most valuable contribution U.S. scientists can make is to continually question basic assumptions and conclusions, promote clear and careful appraisal and presentation of the uncertainties about climate change as well as those areas in which science is leading to robust conclusions, and work toward a significant improvement in the ability to project the future. In the process, we will better define the nature of the problems and ensure that the best possible information is available for policy makers.

So the government wants some of the Summary for Policymakers wording changed. That doesn't sound good.
But the scientists got the approval of the authors and the main document, the actual results, were unchanged. Eh, that's good.

It appears Wolf is right...

Peer reviewers have their own agendas, hobby horses, and pet theories, and woe be to the researcher who presents solid research that goes against conventional wisdom.

I've seen a ton of stories on PBS and in print about scientists starting with Galileo, that paid a heavy price only to be vindicated later. Not all persecution was from religious or secular leaders, but from peers, also.

There seems to be a whole lot of bias, politics and power base building going on...and it's not all from the government.

I'm guessing 99.9% of these scientists are decent people trying to do the right thing, but they have neither the ways nor means to do anything, without some organization to work for them. At the moment it appears to be two choices available;
1- The National Research Council (IPCC) who is compromising a little but has the governments ear.
2- The Union of Concerned Scientists who say they maintain the moral high ground but the policy makers don't listen to.

Of course any organization of people will be comprised of movers/shakers and the rest(read majority) of the members. The personal pride and prejudices of the leaders will have a heavy bearing on any organization.

This Chart showing things that have a heating or cooling effect and how well they are understood, comes from;
http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/13.html