I never said the IPCC reports were peer reviewed, I said that report 1 on the science basis of climate change contains about 150 pages of references to peer-rev

I never said the IPCC reports were peer reviewed, I said that report 1 on the science basis of climate change contains about 150 pages of references to peer-reviewed articles where the science is done, as a response to the comment about climate change researchers being in too much of a hurry to publish in peer-reviewed journals. While we can argue about the process behind the IPCC reports, your link smells of paranoia to me. For one, those politicians voting include reps from the oil-producing Gulf states and to think that they would be predisposed to wanting the finding to be that oil is bad seems far-fetched to me. I'm sure the representatives for the U.S. government wasn't exactly pushing to acknowledge global warming either. Besides, I must argue with the basic premise of your comment. The politicians are the ones who get things done, and in the end they, just like everyone else, will have to choose what conclusions to draw from the science. Given that the IPCC is at least made up by an assembly of scientists who are trying to synthesize and summarize a whole body of research for those politicians, I think that's about as good a process as one can imagine. It's certainly better than deciding, apparently on their own, that the science on global warming is inconclusive like a certain outgoing US administration appears to have done.