The problem with this common question is that way too many people do not understand what the word "fact" means in a scientific context. Outside of axiomatic systems we don't have any "facts", we only have observations, also note that the fundamental axioms of mathematics are assumptions agreed by "consensus", not fact.

"Scientific consensus" is just the modern term for what Karl Popper called "the republic of science". It means that no single authority/observation/calculation has the strength of "scientific fact" (or "well established science" if you prefer). At no point in the process of strengthening a "scientific fact" does it become "actual fact", but that's ok because we do not pursue science as a path to absolute truths, we pursue it because of its track record of utility to mankind (and the 'fact' that humans are more curious than the proverbial cat).

As for the "flat world" canard, the well known skeptic Asimov had something to say about that in his short essay The relativity of wrong.

Well duh, the IPCC do not provide any economic calculations or conclusions. They provide the best available reports on what is happening and what the trends are doing, they then advise policy makers what problems are likely to occur and what can be done to mitigate or avoid them.

So where are the studies refuting the likes of Stern, the IMF, and other hard nosed bean counters?

Just some nitpicks.
Fourier died in 1830, he predicted the properties of C02 in 1824 while developing spectroscopy.
Tyndal confirmed the prediction by experiment in the 1850's
The first mention of AGW was in 1896 by a guy called Arrhenius, he woefully underestimate the growth in emissions and estimated it would take 3000yrs for CO2 to double.
Arrhenius was largely ignored for 50yrs, it was believed that the spectrum of H2O overlapped and overwhelmed that of CO2. The "problem" during those 50yrs was explaining the ice ages.
In the 1950's work on heat seeking missiles improved spectroscopes to the point it could be shown that the two spectra were interleaved not overlapped.

In 1958 the national academies first warned the US government that CO2 was warming the earth, their confidence in that warning has done nothing but strengthen since that time.

Why do people believe this shit when it is so fucking simple to refute. Also you have got the various organizations all muddled up. The IPCC is purely for scientific review, it does not "do science", it does not have it's own scientists, nor does it pay a dime to any of the ~2500 scientists who donate their time to write the reports. Their budget is available on their site, it's a modest $5-6 million a year sourced from over 100 nations of all political colours, most of this is spent on airfares and conference rooms and salaries for 3-4 full time admin staff.

Just to be clear, the UNFCCC is where the political haggling takes place.

All of your suggestions of how they should conduct themselves before doing anything have been done to death, you simply have not been paying attention. Your sense of fair play has allowed vested interest to pull the wool over your eyes and insert FUD into your brain.

Despite the fact you leave the word " apocalyptic" undefined could you link to what you consider the best three example of this hidden treasure trove?

Currently 0.14degC/decade, however the rate of change itself is also accelerating.

You mean like this?

I find it very hard to believe you are making these basic mistakes and have also researched the subject for yourself. Forget the idea that you are neutral, your not and I'm not. Question your own assumptions and use reputable sources, then come back and look at your post. When you figure out who has been misleading you will probably get very angry, I know I did. Fool me once shame on you and all that...

We can probably disband the UN, you seem to have " telling every country on earth what they should be doing" covered,

Indeed, they are shooting at a hippopotamus with a .22, at best they are just pissing it off. The intellectually curious are trapped in open ground between them and in grave danger of being trampled or shot.

It has the potential to be either or somewhere in between, people who are certain they have fore-knowledge of the social consequences of this particular experiment are reveling more about themselves than the future.

People that started in the mail-room and made it to CEO were almost always the former CEO's/Chairman's son.

A common practice for sure, but as someone who started working 39yrs ago my experience was the majority just had the RightStuff(TM)*.

* - right place, right time, right attitude.

I can't speak for the US but these kind of opportunities exist today in Australia, for centuries one particular opportunity was clearly labeled as "mail boy", communications technology has killed the mail boy along with a lot of other clerical activities, the trick nowadays is to spot the unlabeled opportunity in an entry level job, but hasn't that always been the case?

The mail room path was additional to the formal education path, it's primary advantage was you knew everybody in the building. An education would start you off a couple of rungs above a mail boy but your political/social understanding of the organization would be limited to your boss, coworkers, and the mail boy. The ideal situation was to get a job as a mail boy AND study at the same time.

As with the UK, more than a few Aussie companies prefer to promote from the bottom up. However I can also see the merit in occasionally recruiting a Cxx from outside to stir up a stagnant business.

I'd rather we broke up each Cxx prize into 100 more modest prizes.

It also sounds like they have a "buyers market" for labour, workers can pick and choose because there are plenty of jobs and businesses are forced to react by making more attractive offers. Henry Ford famously did the same thing with his factory (the largest in the world at the time). He dramatically cut workers hours at the same time as handing out massive pay increases, and then made a big noise about it in the newspapers. Workers flocked to the Ford factory looking for a job, (somewhat counter-intuitively) productivity also went through the roof. A direct result of Ford's policy was that it pushed the US into a 40hr week much faster than the unions could have done so alone, it was a glaring example to all that such a move would not destroy the economy..

When I was a kid China was still suffering the last of Mao's self-induced famines, I'm pretty sure most workers in China look at today's job market as a blessing rather than a problem because at the end of the day, finding and retaining workers is a rich man's problem and a common man's opportunity.

Illegal timber is big business, there are huge profits and people are prepared to get violent about it. A single hardwood tree can be worth tens of thousands of dollars, particularly fine furniture species. I imagine they would attach these things to the most valuable trees. There are other schemes to track where legal logs come from but they require a lot of manpower to police since each log needs to be checked to find unregistered logs. This idea certainly won't catch everyone but as you say these illegal loggers are a businesses with heavy equipment, a tree that calls home will expose the entire company behind the operation.

BTW: How would one use an EMP without also frying the electronics in the trucks and bulldozers?

Whatever, but we will still lock you up for driving without a license.

Virtually ALL art is a derivative of a derivative, most of science, politics, and religion too.

non recursive link