Al gore, above, being held by dude in funny coat... he just can't handle the inconvenient truth...
If the IPCC's reports were flawed, as a many global warming "skeptics" have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement -- the environmental movement's "mother of all environmental scares" -- is undermined. The Obama administration's war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to "fix" a problem that didn't really exist.
The "recommendations" issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC's 2010 report.
The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and "do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications" (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
(All emphasis mine)
Well, well, well. One of the alarmism believers' main claims is that the IPCC reports are "peer reviewed". I cast big questions on the whole "peer review" claim, wondering how we know whether those who "reviewed" the reports were serious and skeptical like proper, real scientists need to be, or were just simply agreeing to the conclusions without going over the 100,000 pages of data, agreeing just like that to political policy recommendations, etc.
Well, I was right. So therefore, the "science is sound" claim is invalid because it hadn't been deemed "sound" in a proper manner by serious, skeptical, real scientists. This in addition to the fact that at the main source of the IPCC's data, the University of East Anglia, "scientists" there were caught red-hand via their emails to one another indicating they were manipulating and deleting data so as to arrive at the results and conclusions they preferred.
The science is not sound. The data is corrupt and worthless, it's been debunked with proper data showing no global warming at all in the past, oh, about 20 years. Now the IPCC admits that their reports were NOT PEER REVEIWED, REALLY.
I win, and the warmist Chicken Littles lose.
Now, please stop the bullshit, ok? Drill, baby, drill! Burn, baby, burn! Spew, baby, spew!
Oil! Coal! Gas! Prosperity! Good old happy days must be brought back now to save the Free World!
Poor David Suzuki, arrogant old militant fruit fly guy-cum-enviro-fascist hypocrite...
"NOOOOOOOOO! I'M MELTING!!!!"