OK I’ll start with a quick summation:
NZ should not base any future action/taxes on IPCC reports, they are fatally flawed.

We hear much about Gold Standard, Peer reviewed articles - if u have missed this nonsense, then they are all at this Link. ( for copy and paste merchants = http://noconsensus.org/IPCC-quotes.php )

Reality is, in the 2007 IPCC Forth Assessment (AR4) there are 18,531 references cited and of those 18,531, a full 5,587 were NOT Peer reviewed articles but are in fact ‘Grey Literature’ (Grey Literature include Activists Opinion, Newspaper articles and the like)
One could do another article on the incestuous IPCC peer review process as well, but will leave that for now.

When asked when reviewers examine his raw data and computer codes, Phil Jones said they are never asked. ( He is one of the elite IPCC insiders )

How can any country base taxing its citizens on such a shoddy piece of work, because the IPCC certainly is not going to highlight Non Peer reviewed parts to allow accurate assessment of which parts of the document have any validity.

Now i know a number of readers of this will want to challenge me over those numbers - “Don’t”
If you have any issue with them or the methodology used to arrive at those figures then buy Donna LaFramboise’s book ‘ The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert’; for the princely sum of 2 cups of coffee viz., NZ$6.38 (Kindle version) and read it. Then if you have an issue with her methodology, which incidentally is far more robust than that of the IPCC, then take it up with her.

When one considers the vast amounts of money that has gone into these 4 assessment reports, and the great amount of Man Made CO2 that has been generated from these ‘Bun Fests’ it is easy to see something really good could have been done instead, such as reducing or eradicating the Malaria problem. But no, next stop Cacun.

Ooops, should have read 'for the princely sum of the price of 2 cups of coffee'
Editing it would screw up formatting, so this amendment will have to do.

Ooops again - got my conferences mixed up. Problem is i don't get invited, but next bun fest will be organized by Prof Boon-Kee Goh in 2014 at Singapore.
Keep an eye out for invites

Of course it is hard to get decent info in this topic ruled by the IPCC but note this;



the video at this Link has a better run through.

Here is an exhaustive/ing list of these gushings which continue to be regurgitated.

and it is;
Agence France-Presse, Reuters who say this;
The IPCC is a collection of some 3,000 scientists from around the world
at this Link

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 194 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions.

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

A bit different from the above posts.

'A bit different from the above posts."
Yes - Sure is.
All the above are about these five words;

When Christopher Columbus sailed to find out what lay beyond the edge of the world I suppose it was necessary to rigorously balance his discoveries and the information he brought back with what was known understood and believed at the time; I guess for every article about America there would have been another informed and scientific about 'here be dragons....'

'informed and scientific about 'here be dragons....''
guess u are right - it sounds about the same calibre as the IPCC