I give you Roger Harrabin.
In his article about the so called Amazongate scandal, where it was reported that the IPCC had declared that the Amazonian rain forests were in imminent danger of dying due to a lack of rainfall, due to Global warming, he now appears to distance himself from it.
After the usual bluster he concludes with this:
I have tried to contact the lead author of Working Group II to ask why his team cited WWF not the journals - but without success so far.
My guess is that NGO reports often offer an easy synthesis of already-published evidence.
In my experience, NGO papers are often both accessible and accurate - though clearly written from a point of view.
But it is obvious that the next IPCC report will have to be much more meticulous about flagging up the provenance of its sources.
There will need to be more clarification of what is known as "grey" literature (not peer-reviewed) and IPCC panel participation.
It all points to the need for much greater transparency, though that will throw up issues of its own for a body striving to offer a coherent view to policymakers of an issue dominated by risk, uncertainty and values, rather that unambiguous science.
Just this week, for instance, there were two pieces of published research in Science and Nature suggesting that the very worse effects of climate change may have been overestimated.
The researchers of both papers say they are still concerned about man-made climate change, though.
The unfinished science of climate change goes on.
Full article here At the BBC