The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just completed a series of landmark reports that chronicle an update to the current state
of consensus science on climate change.
The flap about sea level is a reminder that I.P.C.C. doesn't work well on topics that are outside the normal
bounds of consensus science — yet those «extremes» are key to understanding the tails of the distributions, especially those that relate to possible catastrophic changes in climate systems.
Bravo Jim, though I digress, the more disturbingly shrill invective filled diatribes is not only a poor reflection on them as individuals, but further disintegrates the
credibility of their consensus science thinly veneered over their desire for political control over any aspect they feel they need to control for their own, err «public good».
Yet, despite having «semi-protected» status to prevent anonymous changes, Wikipedia's acid rain entry receives near - daily edits, some of which result in egregious errors and a
distortion of consensus science.»