> 100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review.

See the 1-2 pages of references at the end of every section of the IPCC report? Those are (almost) all articles in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals. They are cited according to the names of the last authors within the text where their conclusions are used. Finding a few that were not peer reviewed would be a scandal; claiming that none of them were peer-reviewed seems akin to claiming that our government is run by lizards wearing human suits. Any chance you have some extraordinary evidence to back your extraordinary claim?

> After reading their Guru Ramaswamy's radiative forcing it was totally clear that they were totally worthless for anything meaningful.

Are you referring to this? https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ch...

Or perhaps the updated version? https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha...

On one hand I have 130 pages of careful, meticulous reasoning employing detailed physical and statistical arguments culled from ~700 peer-reviewed journal articles which are each cited by name when they are used and listed in detail at the end of the chapter.

On the other hand I have a one word insult from, uhh, you.

> Somehow I just lost 37 points today... [unrelated story about a comic book store]

Not sure what you're trying to argue here, that seems about right to me.

> [the NYT cherry-picks extreme values that aren't representative]

Fair enough, but the IPCC report isn't guilty of this sin and the statistical distribution of predicted outcomes is still quite disturbing.

> [suggestion that climate change concerns are based on some religious nonsense involving the retribution of Mother Earth]

Where do you get this from? I've got "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing" open in another window, so I can see exactly what they're basing their arguments on. There's a hell of a lot of physical observations and mathematical analysis. I don't see mother earth or the word "retribution" anywhere in the text.

> What's going on with the temperature of the planet? No one knows. The record is totally clear -- the computer models have been wildly off.

You're right about the models being off, but wrong that the scientific community wasn't quick to figure out what happened. Turns out they underestimated the deep ocean's ability to soak up heat, even though they've gotten the radiative models (and therefore the fact that "heat in > heat out") more or less spot on. If the radiative models continue to hold, thermodynamics says the buy won't last forever.

I'm off campus right now but you can chase down the literature through this article (unless you think Nature isn't peer-reviewed either?):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/514142d...

> They have to name the sources or we have to regard their writing as just drama.

The Chapter of the IPCC report that you cited named ~700 peer-reviewed sources over about 17 pages. The conclusions in the NYT are in rough agreement with that and other chapters in the IPCC report.

> If you don't see this transparent manipulation, too bad -- it's what they've been doing for decades.

The NYT's various sins concern me far less than the underlying science. The meticulous attention to detail, alternative hypotheses and interpretations, and confidence analysis I've seen in the IPCC report impresses me. What I've heard from conservatives does not. You included. Care to try to change that?