Scientific IPCC vs sceptic spin

The "mission" of the IPCC was to scientifically assess the basis of global warming - it was NOT "to bolster the hypothesis that manmade greenhouse gas emissions are causing harmful climate change" (a clearly un-scientific approach).  
 
The endless carping from un-scientific climate sceptics about the consensus-based, scientific, Nobel Prize-winning IPCC is very irritating. If the internationally represented IPCC as constituted was deficient then the requirement would be to set up another collection of thousands of reputable climate scientists - who would no doubt face the same obfuscatory criticism from spin-based climate sceptics.  
 
What the anti-science, spin-based climate sceptics simply don't understand is that the thousands of IPCC scientists - as practising scientists - were all in essence attempting to DISPROVE the hypothesis of man-made global warming (science being about the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses).  
 
In contrast, the anti-science, spin-based climate sceptics attempt to prove that AGW does not exist - an impossibility since you can't prove a negative e.g. you can't "prove" that MWC News is not a front for alien invaders from outer space.  
 
According to the analysis summary published by the very eminent Professor John Holdren and based on the IPCC AR4 (see: John Holdren (2008), “The Science of Climatic Disruption” (power point lecture)) "The warming influence of anthropogenic GHG and absorbing particles is ~30X the warming influence of the estimated change in input from the Sun."

http://mwcnews.net/gideon-polya

Guest