I have found it difficult to straight out accept the IPCC conclusions for various reasons (although I do accept that these reasons do not necessarily make their conclusions incorrect): 1. Evidence of some scientists fiddling the data. 2. The sheer number of scientists that don't seem to agree with the conclusions (if it was set in stone, then why is there so many 'skeptics'). 3. Politicians being involved. The process has been politicised, and a lot of politicians seem to be using climate change as an excuse to forward agendas. We have gone from global warming to climate change (so that politicians could start explaining why things like Britain's recent cold winter occurred). We are all talking about 'carbon' when we should really be talking about 'carbon dioxide', something that is crucial to life on this earth. We even hear politicians refer to it as 'carbon pollution' - you and I both know that carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant like carbon monoxide. 4. Exaggeration of the affects of climate change by some 'respected' scientists (Tim Flannery has made ridiculous predictions, none of which have come true and he is meant to be one our top experts). 5. Self interest. Climate scientists have a self interest to progress climate change theory. Skeptical scientists don't have this same conflict of interest in most cases. 6. Hypocritical behaviour. This is mostly politicians - if you truly believe in something, then you live every bit of your life (or as much as possible) in line with that belief (just like you and Scarfy with no tvs in the house). People like Kevin Rudd travel to climate summits with 20 odd staff in tow, and end up emitting more C02 than my whole family will do for a decade. Worse still are guys like Al Gore, sitting in their ivory towers that pump out about 10 families worth of carbon dioxide per year, and then jump on planes twice a week. It is very hard to believe what someone is saying when they aren't themselves living by that mantra. Ross Garnaut is probably our highest ranking political consultant on the policy response to climate change, yet he was chairperson of a mining company that could be considered to be environmental terrorists by dumping heavy metals into the sea of PNG. It is so difficult for me to ignore a lot of these issues, and blindly follow what some scientists and politicians are saying. And I don't prescribe to the theory of the end justifying the means.