This message was self-deleted by its author

[AverageJoe90]

61. Isn't it perhaps possible that methane may not have as much of a impact.....

on temperatures as many(myself included, perhaps), might have assumed? There's got to be some plausible reason behind this.
http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/METHANE.html

Also, 'anti-establishment' texts? LOL.

In any case, its beyond apparent that what the IPCC produces is not the best possible representation of the most current science on the matter; it is not the divine work of God equivalent to the Holy Bible (though, it may be following a similar path as the canonization‎ of the Holy works, where as anti-establishment texts are excluded on an arbitrary basis). Throwing feces at "extremists" and "alarmists" who try to take into account relevant, peer-reviewed research that is not included in the IPCC is not helpful to the discussion or useful. Frankly, it has no more merit than calling someone "poopyhead".

Just because governments created a body to produce the conceptual framework they must abide by while considering climate change in policy discussions, it does not mean that new but excluded research is "out of bounds" in discussions by non-government bodies (like scientists, or even here). The attempt to force everyone to follow arbitrary rules to restrict dialogue reeks of severe bias (beyond just loving the "scientific process&quot .

If these people really loved "science", instead of reinforcing establishment consensus and dismissing novel views, wouldn't they spend their time imploring the IPCC--through any means possible--to include the latests, established data in all their models? Its not truth they are after, but rather, shutting down undesirable dialogue.

Well, unlike folks like Guy McPherson, the IPCC actually IS truly concerned with the latest working data and making sure that it's actually plausible(to a fault, IMO, because sometimes they have indeed fallen behind a bit.). And, btw, what certain people around here may call "novel views", the real science says it's junk. (And don't get me started the on name-calling, either: I can't count how many times I myself had been labelled a "denier" on here just because I don't believe the "Human extinction by AGW alone!" hype, or by pointing out that the extreme views on both sides are wrong, or that the consensus isn't quite as inaccurate as some want to believe, etc.)

The IPCC may not be perfect but the last thing we need is pseudoscience to gum up the works no matter if it's coming from Monckton or Watts, OR Wasdell, Light, and McPherson.