Posted by Jeff Condon on January 13, 2012
Steve McIntyre has an interesting post on how certain members of the most controversial sections of Climate Science™ have influenced the openness and transparency of the IPCC. As usual, he has put considerable time into the effort and discovered a unique chain of events in the public documentation.
The IPCC considers its draft reports, prior to acceptance, to be pre-decisional, provided in confidence to reviewers, and not for public distribution, quotation or citation.
We wouldn’t want anyone pointing out that flawed Steig work was being used as a poster boy for global warming until after it was too late right? After all, Soon and Baliunas needed to go because its method was flawed, not because it was an anti-AGW result. I’m sure that the Berkeley temperature study will also be treated similarly.