Crumbling consensus

A scientist recruited by the IPCC to review articles on climate change which the IPCC reports reference has given us an indication of just how thorough the IPCC review process is - and a classic condemnation of the so-called "consensus" claimed for those 2500 scientists.

Steve McIntyre was invited in 2005 to be a reviewer for the upcoming IPCC AR4 and asked, not unreasonably, for the IPCC to provide sources for data in related in articles that he was being asked to review. The IPCC flatly refused and their reply was highly revealing.

[T]he IPCC process assesses published literature, it does not involve carrying out research, nor do we have the mandate or resources to operate as a clearing house for the massive amounts of data that are used in the climate science community or referred to in the literature used by our authors.

So the IPCC does not carry out research nor do they check the data in articles which the report authors use in their report to support the claims they make?

Out of the 2500 scientists the IPCC claims to be part of their consensus, it turns out that some 1200 of them are employed as "expert reviewers", but if Mr McIntyre's example is anything to go by they do not have access to the data required to review the articles. Which means that some 1200 of the 2500 are performing their reviews without the information that supports the articles they are supposed to be reviewing!

As one of the commenter's, notes ...

“What sort of peer review is it, when the peer reviewer cannot see the data used or the supporting calculations?”

Good question. The answer is that it isn't a peer review at all and that the point of the IPCC is not to critically assess research and data on climate change, but to find anything that will support it's politically motivated pre-conceived assertions that global warming is man-made.