"I reviewed relevant EPA policies on peer review and showed that IPCC peer review did not comply with statutory requirements for EPA peer review. This was based on my knowledge of IPCC peer review at that time, which was primarily the handling of chapter 6 of WG1.Read it all and spread the word; I have started to challenge 'warmists' and they don't like it, they really don't like it...
The peer review process for WG2 appears to be even worse. David Rose in yesterday’s Daily Mail reported that IPCC Coordinating Lead Author Lal knew the glacier claim did not rest on peer-reviewed research, but put it in anyway to “encourage” governments to take “concrete action”..."
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Peer-review or not peer-review
The excellent Steve McIntyre has an interesting piece on Climate Audit that lays bare the flaws in the alleged peer-review procedures of the IPCC: