I’m just trying to figure out (1) why so many scientists scattered through the institutions of the world seem to find fault with the IPCC Report, and (2) why so doing makes them immediately vulnerable to aggressive charges that they are either kooks, frauds, or liars working for Exxon (which is presumably either too evil or too stupid to worry about the climate, since the usual ‘greed’ charge is belied by the fact that corporate profits & dividends–paid to widows, orphans, pension funds & rich folks alike–are only average among American big-cap industrials).

You keep moving the goalposts. It’s a scientific consensus. No one is arguing anyhting about public opinion. How can public opinion be swayed when there’s so much misrepresentation of the science?

As for the data, read the IPCC report.

Oh, and I know moose and squirrel.

There will be hell to pay when Fearless Leader finds out he wasn’t mentioned! You think Moose and Sqvirrel had problems….

Small point, my poll-quote was not to imply that people in general are climate experts, but that the pro-AGW ‘consensus’ claim is, uh, ‘problematic’.

Anyway, sunshine is coming upon the issue (literally, in a sense), and the stampede is I think over. The case will have to be made on data, now. Unless we have another 1974-type sweep in 2008. If that happens, then anything is possible. hell, probable.

I think we need to remove politics from this madness. I think we could best start by forcing the opposing sides to work together and have grant money based on proposed tests/research, rather than results, political affiliation, or philosophy on the subject. I think that our government could implement something like this (assuming that our government can do anything without screwing it up). It should be simple enough for a group of impartial scientists to be placed on a board and tasked specifically to review proposals based on their merit as a scientific experiment, not anything else (no access to the names of researchers, only to the proposals). Government funds get split among the top X% of sound experiments.

Idiots keep weighing in. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t know a damn thing about climatology. Yet, people listen to him and many seem to base their views on what he blathers about. The same for Al Gore. We need less idiots and more thinking individuals on the issue.

Finally, we have to come to terms with the possibility that either A) The planet is going through a cycle which may have serious repercussions on our way of life, B) We are actually damaging the planet with carbon emissions and may have to take an economic hit now to avoid economic disaster later, or C) Global Warming is a load of bullocks. None of those three options will sit well with at least half the population at this point. However, like it or not, I think we’ll need to settle on one of those answers in the end.

Might as well paste Instapundit’s quote:

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults – interviewed between 14 and 20 June – found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

ANYhoo, on the topic, see this Ipos poll from a couple weeks ago. A large poll, over 2,000 adults. Considering Gore’s (and the UN’s) all-fronts offensive, the assertion of ‘consensus’ begs yet another question–does ‘consensus include the public? I hope ‘consensus’ doesn’t mean, a consensus of AGW proponents. That would be ridiculous.