The Mann Hockey Stick does not exist in the sense that it can’t be validly reproduced using Mann’s own data. Mann fudged, and the vaunted ipcc reviewers were not the ones who caught him.
Likewise, according to pre-1995 ipcc graphs, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is now. But now the ipcc essentially wants the multiply reproduced MWP to disappear.
There is yet no proof that GW would be a net disaster. Potential benefits of GW have been minimized by ipcc-like science, or at the least not sought by research funded comparably to that looking for disasters. The Media, enc., virtually denies the very existence of GW benefits, some of which are really quite obvious.
Regardless, underdeveloped Countries such as China and India, which will probably be more adversely affected by any climate change whatsoever precisely because they are underdeveloped, are embarking upon massive coal-fired electricity plant construction.
In constructing 800-1200 such plants over the next decade or so, China and India show in practice that they don’t believe that massively increasing CO2 emissions in order to develop will result in more of a disaster to themselves than not increasing these emissions.
The Kyoto Treaty excludes Countries like China and India from having to follow the Kyoto Protocols. Countries containing 5 billion of the Earth’s 6.5 billion people don’t have to follow the Protocols.
The ipcc does not back nuclear energy as a cure to its alleged disease. Likewise, it has intentionally not studied the costs and probable ill-side effects of its own alleged cure – the Kyoto Protocols – to its own alleged disease.
Thus, in practice, the ipcc does not believe its own disaster-cause schema, and is not serious about its own alleged remedy.
So there could be a “consensus” on paper that GW will be a disaster and that the culprit is fossil fuel CO2 – though I am unaware of the appropriate vote having occurred. But there is definetly not a consensus in practice, especially if judged by the acts of alarmists themselves, as noted by alsmm – except that the popular “consensus” is wrong.
In the end the ipcc “science” – or the manipulation of its science – is simply not scientific. All it does is state disaster-cause hypotheses, then beg the question. It does not scientifically try to disprove its own hypotheses.
That’s why it didn’t catch Mann’s mistake – one small example among many involving unscientific ipcc claims and methods.
