The Royal Society on Sceptics and IPCC

On BBC4 the Royal Society's Lord Rees defended climate change research:

• uncontroversial evidence (of AGW) is enough to motivate some concern...
• press coverage of concerns over the reliability and credibility of climate change evidence should not be seen "out of proportion"  and with "exaggerated view on controverises"...
• there may have been one or two cases where (IPCC) people have overstated things...
• I don't want to comment on Climatgate...
• sceptics should join the scientists...
• uncertainties are being narrowed down...
• we know enough to justify the coarse reaction of the kind our Government is taking...
• the basic climate modeling of IPCC AR4 has not been criticized at all...

Amazing, I must say. Lord Rees also speaks for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,

which like the Royal Society (still) supports IPCC and keeps it from collapse... 

The Royals are supported by the Nature Editorial Climate of Fear:

• The integrity of climate research has taken a very public battering in recent months. Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.
• Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. 
• Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it's only superficially about the science. 
• The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. 
• Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.
  

Amazing, I must say. Is this how British Lords handle scientific inquiry?  Compare with Richard Lindzen and Hadi Dowlatabadi on NASA alarmism, climate modeling, global mean temperature, satellite data,...Do Lindzen and Dowlatabadi fit the description, honestly?

Compare also with Climategate: the IPCC's whitewash 'review' is the AGW camp's biggest mistake yet and remember that the Royals belong to the AGW camp.

And listen to the this debate with State Rep. Mike Noel, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, showing in particular the crucial role of the Royals as scientific guarantees of IPCC. 

The Royal Society stated on Dec 16 2009 in Preventing Dangerous Climate Change: 

• The trend in global average temperature within the last decade has been small but this is very likely to be largely due to natural variability masking the long term trend. Such a masking effect has occurred in the past.

Global warming is claimed to continue, but is "masked" by "natural variability" which makes it impossible to observe. Isn't this like the tortoises by some claimed to carry the Earth, which

cannot be observed because they are invisible?  One can as well claim that the Earth is cooling,

which is not observable because it is "masked by natural variability". How stupid are the people addressed by the Royals supposed to be?

As a sidestep: Get inspiration from  a glorious story of an emeriti.