The IPCC is actually made up of real scientists.

There are plenty of issues with the IPCC scientist and well-known experts in the various fields the IPCC report covers have been becoming more vocal over some of the claims they've made.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=2

"I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC," states Prof. Reiter, whose history in his research field spans three decades and five continents, and who is well familiar with the scope of work occurring in the mosquito-borne research community.

"On the contrary, all of us who work in the field are repeatedly stunned by the IPCC pronouncements. We protest, but are rarely quoted, and if so, usually as a codicil to the scary stuff."

....

As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"

....

Even the peer-review process -- ordinarily designed to ensure rigorous science -- has mutated to meet IPCC needs. In professional science, the names of peer reviewers are kept confidential to encourage independent criticism, free of recrimination, while the deliberations of the authors being critiqued are made public.

"The IPCC turns this on its head," Prof. Reiter explains. "The peer reviewers have to give their names to the authors, but the deliberations of the authors are strictly confidential." In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.

So in truth the IPCC is far more of a Government body than a scientific one...by their own assertion.

Either way their position is wrong because it is factually and emprically wrong..not because of who they are, what their agenda is, or who they represent.

PS - To answer your first question to me...no particular reason.  I honestly don't normally even think about it.....although I do catch myself doing it from time to time.  Ultimately the point gets across though and both parties know what is meant so I don't worry about it too much.

what does exist. its incredible heat.
2 years ago i am experience incredible heat. 30 C at night.
the hell that news, and our rainy season. its impossible.
24 C was the average night on and 28 C at day,
now we get 39 C at day 28 C -C 30 C at night

What?

@Sqrl. You quote Prof. Reiter as though he is some sort of authority. He studies medical entomology, not the climate.

I think you really are ignorant of the current scientific opinion on climate change, no major scientific bodies now actively deny anthropogenic climate change and only a few do not hold the positive opinion that it is happening. There are some dissenting views but they are most certainly a minority view rather than the dominant view you make it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Read through that to get an idea of the scientific consensus on this issue.

I think it incredibly arrogant of humans to think that as soon as something changes in our world it is automatically our fault. 'Oh the temperature is increasing... IT MUST BE OUR FAULT!". typical human attitude...

I thought scientists just released a study that stated fossil fuels AREN'T about to run out because as it turns out you don't need fossil for fossil fuels.

Also... anyone who thinks they know anything about climate change is likely Bsing you.

It's all based on incomplete climate models... models created by the people running the experiments. They choose what's included and excluded... and in reality biasing the study.

We don't even have accurate Global Temperatures.

Well we do... but just for like... the last 10 years or so. NASA's Satellite is the only really accurate method for knowing the "average global temperature" the rest is guesswork that is likely biased by POV.

As for the IPCC.... all i can say about them is they lost a lot of members over what was as by the members as being unscientific.  I'd believe them about as much as I'd believe Mahmoud Ahmaddinejad about the history of the early to mid 20th century.

That's flawed logic. You can't base decisions on guesses.

It's the same type of logic that some Christians use:

"What if there is an afterlife and Christianity is the only way to avoid Hell or destruction. Why take the chance by not accepting Jesus Christ? You have nothing to lose."

                                                       
                                                                           There are better reasons to become a Christian than that argument, which is flawed.

You think it's ok to lie to people just so long as the results are good?

I can't say I could disagree with a thing more.