There’s nothing particularly bad about accidentally letting non-peer-reviewed documentation into your official climate change summary document. It doesn’t make the whole process fraudulent, nor does it necessarily mean that the predictions are wrong. However, we shouldn’t be making major policy decisions based on this document.
- A boot cleaning guide
- Phil Jones at the CRU hid data – Guardian
- Lots of WWF-written papers referenced in the IPCC
- IPCC claims from student dissertation & Mountaineering magazine
- More WWF papers and Leisure and Event papers referenced in the IPCC
- IPCC chairman was informed of the issues with glacier melt before Copenhagen