Who makes up the IPCC?

If you study animal family groups, such as mericats, elephants, chimps, gorillas, wolves, lion prides, immigration of young human males without the extended family, etc, studies show that if the adult males and females that are past child-bearing age are removed from the group, the group disintegrates.

Several articles today on legalising and taxing marijuana in California and Oregan.
Sounds like a good way to take money out of criminal hands.
Then you realise two things:
1. Legalising it would mean the already establish wealthy companies would take control of it. Many poor people who make cash on the side from selling the stuff would end up poorer and commit more crime than they already do.
2. It’s bad enough that the youth have already been getting stoned and easy to brainwash by a politically motivated media. Now they could become permanently stoned all day long legally and become even more susceptible to brainwashing.

foinavon at 8:15: Of course! (Oh, I dislike addressing disinformation specialists.) “And as with science in general, there is a strong representation of youthful women in climate science.”
Probably a majority of IPCC “scientists” are young and as you have pointed out many of them are female. I imagine that few older scientists who are well versed in their research areas would give the IPCC the time of day — that is unless they desire to continue to receive grants and to be published. Almost all publications have been taken over by the pseudo-scientists (academic and corporate) who demand the party line. Older scientists on the IPCC will be either financially needy or ego driven, or like James Hansen, not only the latter, but spouting off outside of his area of expertise.
Regarding the (young) women scientists, the issue becomes more complicated. If they are raising a family (even with husbands) they become even more subject to subtle threats to their job security, advancement possibilities, and being included on a research team. How many universities have young male or female scientists in any area touching climate change who are permitted to work on real science.
My smallish institution of higher education was pretty much taken over by leftists-marxists-critical theorists. Once they became the majority of the faculty in a department — and well placed deans could stack those odds — all other faculty members voted in were fellow travelers. Applicants with excellent credentials were ignored; course standards declined; and the variety of viewpoints contracted severely. Our current President did not stray far from these leftists ideas throughout his entire career, and a study of his student and work career suggests that he never had to produce much in any area.
Thank goodness for the older folk who know what standards are, who know how to work, who know the rigors of science and other research fields. They will continue to pursue truths. I think I hear envy on the part of “younger” commenters. With age comes wisdom and the freedom to pursue one’s own goals. More power to age.

Yup,
medias running mad on AGW, maybe there’s nothing else left
they could distort.
Don’t worry, guys and gals, the world allways did look extremely mad,
just before it entered a time of reason and sane again.
Here we are, again.

David Porter (11:37:12)
Not sure what your point is. I’m addressing Steven Goddard’s top post which makes a rather selective depiction of climate science (“Is it a big surprise that most senior scientists are adult white males?”). In the climate field (as in science in general at least outwith the very physical/mathematical sciences), women (and even youngish women without beards!) are rather highly represented in senior positions. That seems to be a truism…perhaps you can explain why pointing that out detracts from my “credibility”!

Ben Lawson (07:19:56) :
Why didn’t you continue the quote you pulled? “Aside from a smattering of academics from well-known universities, they are affiliated with rightwing thinktanks, such as the Ayn Rand Institute, the Carbon Sense Coalition, or the scarily named Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow, that operate far outside the mainstream of public discourse.”
So, Ben, does that mean that you endorse the article’s methodology, as long as the excerpted parts are included? To my way of thinking, the added materials merely reinforce the sense that the writer does not want to deal with the substance of the arguments being presented. Whether the presenters are old white men, or merely associates of one or another supposedly disreputable organization, its all the same sort of guilt-by-association argument as far as I can tell. I speak as a good left winger, who can’t stand Ayn Rand, but also can’t stand this kind of politically correct rubbish from the “other side.” Let’s try to deal with this subject on the merits,shall we?
The skepticism I have heard voiced here, as well as on other sites, has convinced me that, whatever brush you want to smear the ICCC participants with, as a group they are performing a valuable function in our society. They are responding, sometimes with considerable intelligence and insight, to the amazingly bizarre and unfounded “science” that has proclaimed that AGW is a “fact” that is “beyond debate.” This is clearly not the case, or you would not be so engaged in the debate as to defend such disreputable tactics.

whoops, I messed up my blockquotes! Here’s how it should have turned out:
pyromancer76 (12:38:35) :

foinavon at 8:15: Of course! (Oh, I dislike addressing disinformation specialists.) “And as with science in general, there is a strong representation of youthful women in climate science.”
Probably a majority of IPCC “scientists” are young and as you have pointed out many of them are female. I imagine that few older scientists who are well versed in their research areas would give the IPCC the time of day — that is unless they desire to continue to receive grants and to be published. Almost all publications have been taken over by the pseudo-scientists (academic and corporate) who demand the party line…….subtle threats to their job security…….leftists-marxists-critical theorists……fellow travelers….leftists ideas …….

You seem to be pursuing a conspiracy theory notion. Have you got any evidence of these “publications taken over by pseudo-scientists…”? It doesn’t ring true to me at all. Since science is evidence-based there’s abundant scope for young scientists (with and without beards!) to make novel discoveries, find out things that don’t conform to the current view and so on. And these get published. So the notion that all those scientists (women and all) are toeing the party line is just absurd. One cannot make any progress in science by attempting to pursue falsehoods.
And in fact very many “older scientists who are well versed in their research areas” are more than happy to make their contribution to the IPCC. We could make a list of many of those too if we wished.
As for your “smallish institution of higher education”, it sounds like you made a dismal choice….bad luck!

David, may you be run over by a matriarchal African elephant who just so happens to not like her younger daughter’s choice of mate. Many a male wannabe has been seen peeing as he flees that charging elephant.

I think it would be an interesting statistical study to try to compile data on the number of times errors artificially increase the observed AGW effect over the number of times that the errors artificially decreased the observed AGW effect.
I would suspect that you would find an equal distribution of errors above and below, unless somebody is massaging the numbers.
Two possible sources of error.
1. Those looking for errors in the data might be searching only for errors that shown increase.
2. Those in the scientific fields could actually be massaging the data to make their case stronger, e.g. Dr. James Hansen.
Anybody interested in or have time to take on such a task? I’d be interested in helping to do a study of this nature.