The IAC report on the IPCC - just one point and some links

I used to get very pissed off with eco-mentalist friends who kept assuring me that Man Made Climate Change was an undisputed fact and that all of the IPCC 'research' was peer-reviewed. So I was most interested to read this in the IAC's report:

'The IPCC should strengthen and enforce its procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature, including providing more specific guidance on how to evaluate such information, adding guidelines on what types of literature are unacceptable, and ensuring that unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature is appropriately flagged in the report.'

You can read some proper analysis at Watts Up With That or some pro-'warmist' slanted coverage at The BBC. You pays your money, you takes your choice... Except you don't because if you live in the UK and have a television then you have to pay for a TV licence to fund the BBC.


Actually there are some other points that need flagging up:

'Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event (e.g., based on measurement, expert judgment, and/or model runs).

The confidence scale should not be used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes.'

This would help stop broadcasters saying that sea levels 'could' rise by some ridiculous figure when the chances of this happening are minuscule.

'to make sure that all scientific criticism is addressed and different point of view are reflected in the final report.'

This sounds like an admission that up until now different points of view have been excluded from the IPCC's reports, thus allowing the 'narrative' that it is settled science.