This is a hoot: Former IPCC lead author Ken Caldeira seems surprised that climate realist bloggers think the IPCC is important enough to criticize; amusingly, he also actually claims that "Climate science is a relatively mature science"

New Directions for the Intergovernmental Climate Panel - NYTimes.com

[Warmist Ken Caldeira] Call it naivete, but I was surprised when the last remnants of the climate-science denial team erupted with glee in the blogosphere at my remarks on the IPCC made on Dot Earth earlier this week. This shows that I may have been wrong about the effectiveness of the IPCC, as at least this marginalized faction thinks that the IPCC is an important and effective tool for scientific communication -- important enough that they feel it is worth their time to try to weaken its influence.

Instead, what I was looking for was to strengthen the IPCC, but in my earlier post I failed to make positive remarks on how this might be done. I present here a modest suggestion.
...
Climate science is a relatively mature science. It does not change a lot in a few years. Climate science today is largely an elaboration on and confirmation of the basic climate science I was taught in graduate school 25 years ago, which isn't that different from climate science as understood by the generation that preceded me.

My guess is that most of the key points that scientists will feel important to communicate five or ten years from now will be largely the same as what scientists would like to communicate right now. Therefore, future editions of this book could consist of relatively minor updating, pointing to important new literature and important new scientific discoveries.

Flashback: Warmist Ken Caldeira resigns as IPCC lead author, says "it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices"