Behind the consensus of the IPCC report

Makes for illuminating reading on how consensus is reached.

http://www.webace.com.au/~wsh/consensus.htm

I suggest working your way through the other links in this report.
If this is how science is being done then will we be able to trust
microwave effects on the troposphere or will the environmentalists
bastardize that for ideological reasons? How about the effects on
human physiology?

If you don't care about SPS, then think about why opponents may not
like a Disposable Earth mentality where people expand to orbital
locations without first remedying the Earth to the satisfaction of
the critics.

This has implications for us all. How do we bring integrity back to
a corrupted process.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
"Methodologically, the report is deeply committed to reliance on
large models, and within the report models are largely verified by
comparison with other models. Given that models are known to agree
more with each other than with nature (even after "tuning''), that
approach does not seem promising. In addition, a number of the
participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to
emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress
other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a
survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the
final report."

TangoMan