The review of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been completed and concluded that the science is sound. Of course that is not what many in the blogosphere are saying.
As a journalist my experience with the IPCC over past decade has been that their communication is terrible. The Summary for Policy Makers report is unreadable except by the most dedicated jurno with good salary and few deadlines…
Secondly public statements by IPCC are so qualified with caveats to require telepathy to parse the real meanings.
Finally compared to my reading of the latest science the IPCC is woefully out of date and conservative to a fault.
In my view much of the current criticism of the IPCC is misdirected and done so to deliberately confuse the public about the reality of the near and present danger of climate change.
I have interviewed scientists and other experts about how the findings and integrity of climate science/scientists have been systematically attacked and distorted by those with vested interests:
* Proof of Anti-Global Warming Cabal: Fossil fuel Interests, Christian Evangelicals and the Media
* Violent Backlash Against Climate Scientists
Summary of the InterAcademy Council Review from the excellent Australian science blog Climate Shifts:
The long-awaited review of the IPCC has been delivered by the InterAcademy Council (an Amsterdam-based organization of the world’s science academies). Contrary to the misguided expectations of the denialist community, the Inter-Academy Council has concluded that the periodic assessment reports of the IPCC have been successful overall. There is some need, however, for improving some of the reporting process and for developing a better set of processes to deal with the growing scientific and political complexity of the climate change issue.
Here is the press release posted today by the InterAcademy Council (IAC).
Stephen Leahy, International Environmental Journalist 
Keep trying, Warmist; it’s fun to watch your sort yowl and wail against the reality that has already proven your sort wrong.
@jonolan
“Keep trying, Warmist”…?
So tell us, O wise one, what temperature will it be when you die, assuming that you live for a few more decades? And how exactly do you make that prediction?
Stephan,
I notice you couldnt answer my last comment on your blog at https://stephenleahy.net/2010/08/31/warmer-climate-gives-malaria-new-hunting-grounds/
In fact you called me a liar and then spammed it and although I admit the questions in my blog which I invited you to read carefully, bring up some difficult issues for you, is that how you handle stuff that makes you uncomfortable?
…snip
Cheers
Roger
Roger I obviously did look at your blog. There are no “issues” just bizarre, unsupported statements, delusions and lies. I stand by my previous comment:
Roger you’re simply offering up standard global warming denial talking points, that’s not proof of anything other than an all-too human wish to believe climate change isn’t happening. I wish that were true too. But I have actually read hundreds of climate science studies, talked to hundreds of experts and been to many places like the Arctic where climate change is real and present danger.
Your libellous nonsense about Pachauri is a pathetic pastiche of assumptions and lies cut’n pasted from other bloggers. I have removed your link. I have met and interviewed Pachauri a few times. FYI here’s a real verifiable fact: he was appointed to the IPCC at George W Bush’s insistence after the US forced a real climate scientist out of the job.
I have been on this climate denial bus too many times to continue this conversation with someone who is happy to post lies about other people. Give yourself a shake.
Interesting – what “experts” would these be since Climatology / Climate Science wasn’t even a degree track until Gore made it profitable. Even now it’s most often just a few courses added onto a Geology degree.
You and your sort, Warmist, have nothing except carefully massaged (read that as fraudulent) anecdotal evidence that Earth’s climate is even changing overall in the first place and less than that pointing to CO2 emissions by the Civilized World as the primary cause.
…snip
Stephane,
With all due respect, you have not read my blog. This is evident because you keep refering to Climate Change happening etc.
My blog gives no comment on climate change or global warming, instead it talks about the causation.
Causation I might add is a subject somewhat missing in anything of yours I have read.
Neither do I slander Pachuri, I simply refer to both sides of the controversy and let the reader make up his or her mind.
Therefore I suggest you start using your own brain in following the logic instead of repeating what people you consider “authorative” are telling you.
My blog points to serious holes in the logic behind the “anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming” hypothesis.
If you do have proper answers, I am all ears.
Cheers
Roger
@jonolan, Bo
Those are not particularly useful comments nor germane to the posting
Roger you need some counselling help. Your blog offers nothing but rantings, innuendo, paranoia. You libel people and you don’t offer any evidence only your opinions ie.:
“Al Gore dosn’t really believe in global warming but has also positioned himself to become ultra wealthy (hence the smug look and gesture) especially should Rajendra Pachauri become head of a world government. (which is what the UN will be once the revenues and commissions from world carbon trading and a signed Copenhagen agreement start flooding in).”
This is utter nonsense. Your losing your grip on reality. please get some help and don’t try to post any more comments here
.
Ah yes, the debate is over because a Warmist can’t stand contradiction. That’s OK with me; I too see little use for debate.
We’ll fight you in the elections and, if that fails, we’ll fight you in streets.
Whose this “we”? and there never was a debate – science isn’t about talking points its about data and evidence.
Not sure if you and Roger figured this out but you’re simply doing the dirty work for big oil and coal.