You clearly have not read anything. > Nobody has reviewed it. Page-2 titled "Report Authors" gives you the whole list of authors involved in compiling the rep

You clearly have not read anything. > Nobody has reviewed it. Page-2 titled "Report Authors" gives you the whole list of authors involved in compiling the report all of whom you can lookup on the web. Page-3 is titled "Review" and says Prior to release, feedback on scope, completeness, accuracy, and presentation of the analysis was solicited from scientific experts in each of the areas covered by the report. Experts were invited to comment on one or several chapters of the report... followed by a whole list of reviewers all of whom you can again lookup on the web. > It's more interesting to read https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 that is peer review, but that does not guaranty correctness and it's published in the "policy forum" section. The "Technical Report" (which is where the meat lies) is attached as supplement-1 to the above paper and hence the reason i pointed to it. The Science article is just an overview and you are expected to read the reference materials for a more detailed understanding. > I'm not impressed about 100 pages of references. Your opinion is laughable and dismissed out-of-hand. For a Technical Report dealing in the frontiers of scientific research, references are key since there is a lot which must be brought together to build up the overall picture. That is the reason for the authors including such an extensive list of references showing how they arrived at the points/conclusions listed in the report. It is invaluable and a foundation of the scientific method.