the "science is settled" is nothing more than a meme perpetuated by deniers. No legitimate scientists would suggest the science... is settled. The question is whether it's "settled enough" to draw conclusions and act upon them; i.e., is enough known within degrees of certainty to support summary assessment and resolution options. Whether you accept the consensus (at whatever percentage), that has nothing to do with the IPCC. To-date, there has never been an error noted within any technical based IPCC report; within the AR4 iteration, there were a series of errors associated with WG2/3 reports... errors that had little bearing and no impact on actual IPCC summary assessments or position statements. These errors were simply a reflection on quality control and the lack of continuity across all reports; they also resulted in tightened process controls introduced as a part of the most recent AG5 report cycle.
the IPCC has a very limited permanent structure; the vast majority of it's participants are volunteers, many with bonafide scientific credentials. Your premise holds to the IPCC excluding science/evidence that would be contrary to AGW... this is absolutely false and suggests to me you've never cracked an IPCC report. Perhaps you fail to recognize that the IPCC mandate is one given to it and reinforced iteratively by world governments... outside of the technical based reports, any summary assessment report intended for policymakers is written cooperatively between the IPCC and world government representatives - nothing appears within 'policymaker reports' without the expressed agreement of world governments.
Last edited:
