Well, despite the political fallacies inherent in drafting such reports, the answer is an unequivocal "hell yes!" But a piece at the SCQ by Sarah Burch (which constitutes the second part of an FAQ about the IPCC reports) is better at telling you why:
Given the deluge of noble mandates and far-reaching policy proposals emanating in ever-increasing numbers from that devious hub of sycophants and climbers that we call Ottawa, we must (being the ever-so-enlightened socio-scientific critics that we are) carefully evaluate the straw that broke dear Stephen's back: that is, the most recent IPCC report. The questions posed in Part II of this FAQ (Essentially: Are IPCC reports scientific or political? What are the criticisms of the IPCC? Are there possible alternatives to the IPCC?) become even more pertinent when a report like this one causes such a stir. Are we to trust the findings of this daunting collection of scientific expertise, or discard it, as some critics suggest, as the indulgent and intensely politicized meanderings of self-interested pseudo-scientists parading as authentic consensus-generators?
Anyway, this FAQ (both part I and part II) is worth checking out.
More like this
In a desperate bid to help staunch the propagation of a particularly insidious meme, I offer this attempt to help clear up any confusion:
In the second part of his Ockham's razor talk Aitkin said:
[Guest post by John Mashey]
Previously, I've noted the major hole that the IPCC digs itself by releasing its consensus reports on Fridays, only to be lost in the weekend news cycle.