Bill Wallace wrote to the Pilot & Today urging people to "Believe in Global Warming" based on IPCC publications.
He presented the IPCC results as well reviewed and authenticated scientific results. This is not true. The IPCC organization and process are corrupt. I know some good work is done, but the press releases are deceptive many times in important ways. One of my friends and ex-colleagues, in fact, is one of the lead authors in the current Assessment Report.
The literature is vast, which calls into question the conclusions of the IPCC. It is far from true that most of the world's scientists agree on the conclusions. Most of the scientists working on the IPCC projects are invited by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and are selected for their willingness to carry the water for the advocates in the organization (in my view).
The best current example of corruption is seen in the sad case of Chris Landsea's resignation. He is one of the world's most prominent and capable scientists in the field of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). He was invited to research the impact of global warming on the frequency and intensity of hurricanes and write that section of the Assessment Report. The lead author immediately participated in a news conference in which he stated that the 2004 hurricanes were profoundly affected by global warming.
The scientific work had not yet been done, much less analyzed and written up. This was the answer the lead author and administrators of the program desired. It is a scandal. In fact, research has continued to show that global warming has no significant affect on hurricane intensity of frequency. The earlier assessment reports had explicitly stated that conclusion.
The science of climate change is dauntingly complex, and many answers are yet to be discovered. I urge the readers to avail themselves of many sources of study on this subject if they are interested in understanding the present state of understanding. It is still pretty primitive, and conclusions are at best tentative. In any case, the IPCC is not a good source of authority.
Henry R. Savage