My friend, you're wrong -- the IPCC is not the be-all and end-all of climate science. But as for the hockey stick, I have on very good authority that in two papers -- one about to be published, one likely to be published later in 2005, the "hockey stick" will be verified beyond any shadow of any doubt. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you on that, but that's the way it's going to be. I recommend planning your own personal paradigm shift soon.
Your attitude and posting behavior on this topic hardly strikes me as balanced.
The paper right here speaks directly to the implications of the 'hockey stick' proposition, that current absolute temperature levels and the decadal rates of change are beyond natural variability. This paper demonstrates otherwise.
How can something be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when the preponderance of the evidence says otherwise. I have no doubt that they will make that claim, but please those are the same people have been saying for over a decade on the basis of a correlation say that it has been absolutely proven that global warming is entirely caused by man. Call me skeptical, but I know better than to accept their conclusions. There is just way too much evidence that shows there was a medevil warm period around most of the globe.