You're missing a few steps though ...

Another scientist decides that it is important to generate a computer model which demonstrated the "Current State" of the science and cherry-picks a collection of papers that support his personal hypothesis on the science. The system that the scientist is trying to model is so complex that it can not demonstrate stability under any conditions on its own and feedback loops will eventually have it run into extreme conditions which are impossible. The scientist then makes a bunch of modifications to the calculations and introduces constants that have no scientific basis to create stability within his model, but this introduction of assumed unscientific constants makes it so the computer model will display the trend from the other scientists papers to some degree.

and ...

Political organizations who see the situation as an oportunity to promote their political agenda use the worst case scenerios of the most extreme computer models to convert the situation into a crisis; and then that crisis is used to silence political and scientific debate on the issue.

Methane actually...

Which is (something like) 22.5 times as powerful of a greenhouse gas by volume ...

Edit: I'm not sure if it is true, but I remember reading an article a few months ago where it (essentially) argued that cutting down a tree to burn it would produce a lower greenhouse effect then letting it rot on its own due to the quantity of methane produced by rotting trees.

Indeed, but a much smaller portion by atmospheric concentration.

PS - Just curious but are you referring to climate sensitivity, feedbacks, both, nothing specific, or something else in regards to those constants?

I wasn't talking about anything in particular, I was refering to an establised habit of computer modelers in general ...

Computer models are used in a wide variety of settings, and in most cases the science the computer models are based on is either not well know or would be to computationally expensive to make accurate models. Most of the time you have enough physical data of the system you're trying to model that when you reduce complexity or introduce unknown variables to the system, and you're only looking for rough estimates from the computer model, so the introduction of these non-physically based variables is very acceptable.

To put it another way, 3D computer graphics is (essentially) a gigantic light simulation and the system that the simulation is based on is much better understood (and potentially simpler) than climate science is. More processing power has been thrown at 1 frame of the highest quality 3D movies than was used in many of the computer models to calculate the temperature of the world 100 years from now that we're trying to claim are athoritative; and we still can see a lot of huge inaccuracies in how 3D graphics models light.

Your all mad at the fact that the media spins information but what your really mad at is that conservative news spin just isn't working.

I dk what to say but i think the UN have a better idea of what's happening than any of you.

You do realise the IPCC isn't the only comprehensive game in town right?

Here is a scientific response to AR4 (for those who don't know AR4 is the fourth and most recent assessment from the IPCC, the fifth is tentatively scheduled for 2014), you'll note that its length is nearly identical to that of AR4.  This is not by accident, as they are quite thorough in their reply.

Why would an unscientific body full of bureaucrats (most of whom have backgrounds in the humanities and social sciences) have a more authoritative view on this subject than anyone else? There are lots of scientists who were very upset with how their papers are misrepresented by the IPCC, because their use of papers to support hypothesis' that it doesn't support in order to politicize an issue undermines their efforts to be a well respected scientist.