Australian John McLean has delivered a devastating blow to the credibility of the IPCC, the UN body upon whose work the governments of the world have depended to support their anti-global warming agendas. McLean performed a painstaking review (PDF file) of the authors of Chapter 9 in the latest IPCC report on anthropologic global warming. He found an almost incestuous relationship among the authors that calls into question the objectivity of their findings.
The relationships between most of the authors of chapter 9 demonstrate a disturbingly tight network of scientists with common research interests and opinions. The contrast between this close-knit group and the IPCC’s stated claim to represent a global diversity of views is remarkable and does not augur well for the impartiality or integrity of chapter 9’s conclusions.
He names names and provides detailed examples of the cozy connections among the authors. Not surprisingly, these connections have kept skeptics from having their voices heard in the IPCC’s findings.
More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have coauthored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.
Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community. On the evidence presented here, the IPCC’s selection of its chapter authors appears so prejudiced towards a predetermined outcome that it renders its scientific assessment of the climate suspect and its conclusions inappropriate for policy making.
Someday the current global warming hysteria will be taught in universities as a good example of how not to do science.