>> 100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review. You clearly know nothing about the IPCC. Yet you feel compelled to wr

>> 100% pure, total propaganda with nothing objective at all, certainly not peer-review. You clearly know nothing about the IPCC. Yet you feel compelled to write long comments on the subject. I supervise people who contribute to the IPCC, and they work their asses off to get data together so that their work has been peer reviewed and published in time for the IPCC AR5 report. Because if it's not peer reviewed by a given deadline, it's not even discussed during the IPCC writing period. And if it has not been published by the time the IPCC AR5 is finished, it and the statements it supports are removed from the IPCC report. See http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml : "In order to be reflected in the AR5, literature must be accepted for publication before the final draft is finalized. Any reference that does not fulfill these criteria was removed from the draft contribution together with the statement(s) that it supports."