Paying attention to politics is unrewarding. Those who practice it seem to be intellectually challenged, save for a sort of venal craftiness, and those who support it descend to that level even though they may demonstrate high capabilities in other areas.

So, to repeat the obvious for the benefit of politicians and political supporters:

[U]ntil now the Nobel Peace Prize has been clearly recognized as a political award. The award to the IPCC thus implies that the IPCC is not a predominately scientific, but is in fact a political process: the award equates the scientific study of climate change with political advocacy.

As we already knew. The IPCC is a political advocacy group like all other UN groups. That's all the UN is or ever has been, and it's a low sort of politics that reflects the low sort of politics of the world, especially Europe which still struggles to find its way in the world after centuries of strife, war and political failure. So, to repeat the obvious for the benefit of politicians and political supporters:

The IPCC has endorsed the Kyoto Protocol process, at once discarding its fig leaf of being "policy neutral" and putting its scientific authority on the line by supporting a policy approach that many people think simply cannot work.

The IPCC Synthesis Report states:

There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to climate change, stimulation of an array of national policies, and the creation of an international carbon market and new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. Progress has also been made in addressing adaptation within the UNFCCC and additional international initiatives have been suggested.

The IPCC has never really been "policy neutral" despite its claims, so such openness in its political advocacy is a welcome change . . .

However, its claims that there is "high agreement" and "much evidence" of the success of the Kyoto Protocol approach are simply wrong . . . The ability of the Kyoto Protocol approach to effectively deal with the challenge of climate change is hotly debated . . . And there is considerable evidence that it has done little (or less) in practice. The claim by the IPCC that the UNFCCC has contributed to progress on adaptation is laughable.

The more that the IPCC resembles an advocacy group with a narrow political agenda tied to the Kyoto Protocol, the more it risks its credibility, legitimacy, and ultimately, its sustainability.

I'm amazed that the IPCC has any credibility with anyone. It has done a terrible job with climate issues. The UN is simply the wrong organization for the job. Everything the UN does is shoddy. It was a serious blunder to involve it in such a potentially important issue.

The best that can be said is that by being so ineffective the UN may have helped some nations avoid over reaction and self inflicted harm. The facade of action calmed an otherwise overwrought public, while evading any real consequences. They're all talk.