By far the most important climatological organization is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). It is composed of CLIMATOLOGISTS from many nations. They are tasked to review peer-reviewed scientific literature and prepare an assessment report on the status of global warming science to be used by the general public and policy makers. In other words, they are tasked to find out exactly what the scientific consensus is.
In 2007 they came out with their 4th assessment report (IPCC AR4) and if anyone is actually willing to invest the time and effort, one can get a detailed picture of the state of the science. It is where I have obtained my basic understanding of climatology. It is over a 1000 pages and is not easy reading, but with effort one can obtain a reasonable understanding of the basics underlying the science. The picture it paints of global warming is not a "don't worry, be happy" picture. It says global warming is happening, CO2 is the major contributor and it comes from human activity. It also says that at this point we are doing nothing to stop it, I would argue that the IPCC AR4 is such an important part of the global warming story one is being irresponsible to argue against it conclusions without having actually taken the time to read it.
If the only information one sees on the IPCC and the AR4 comes from global warming denialists then one is going to come away with the impression that it is an organization composed of a handful of hacks with a political agenda designed to push the global warming agenda ... And I suppose that if one only gets their information from global-warming denialists then that is likely to be the impression one would wish to get. But in this case, like almost every other case, the information from global-warming denialists is not particularly reliable.
For instance the Senate Minority Report that jackbenimble links to implies that AR4 was written by 52 scientists. The correct number is 619. Furthermore jackbenimble and the Senate Minority Report imply that there have been a large number of scientists defect from the report (jackbenimble suggests 50). To the best of my knowledge there has been 1, Chris Landsea. Landsea's objection was NOT over whether or not global warming was occurring. It was NOT over whether or not it is human-caused. It was over the effect that global warming will have on future hurricanes, a much less settled part of global warming science.
If as the global-warming denialists claim, the scientists of the IPCC are misrepresenting the science, then one needs to ask, "Why?" Why would they do that? Left-wing political agenda?? What is it about the left-wing that would make it advantageous to knowingly lie about global warming? Some of the more cynical denialist blogs claim it is for the money. WHAT MONEY?? Grant money for science?? Most of that goes to whatever study one writes the grant for. Salaries are generally quite modest. If money is the motivator, any scientist worth his salt can make more doing something else. For instance, global warming skeptics seem to get an inordinant amount from energy companies.
The only way anyone can get it to make sense that mainstream climatologists are misrepresenting their science is to impugn all of science. Climatology covers a body of science the same as biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc. If the scientific process cannot give us reasonable assurance of integrity for climatology, it cannot give us reasonable assurance for any other area either. But I think the process CAN give us that assurance.
Funding in science doesn't go to investigations that only support the status quo. If that were true then there would be no advancement in science anywhere. The funding goes to investigations that have a chance of answering outstanding questions. It goes to investigations in which the members in the field think will produce new knowledge. As global warming has caught the public's attention more funding is going to it. And it is paying off. Results are coming in and all the results (more on that later) are consistent with anthropogenic global warming. The IPCC AR4, to the best of my ability to read the scientific literature, accurately reflects that.
The international standing of the IPCC is about as high as it can get. That is why it (along with Al Gore who actively lectures using their findings) won the Nobel Peace Prize.
