From the NIPCC report June 2009, titled Climate Change Reconsidered
Excerpted a few background notes on the IPCC:
"The IPCC is, first and foremost, a political organization and not a scientific one. It’s findings therefore should be understood to be political and not scientific findings.
we are often told about the “2,500 scientists” who contributed to the latest IPCC report, the vast majority of these contributors had no influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC and were not asked if they endorsed those conclusions
IPCC’s key personnel and lead authors are appointed by governments, not by scientific organizations.
The full reports of the IPCC are then revised after their executive summaries were written in order to agree with the political documents.
The scientists involved with the IPCC are almost all in careers that rely on government contracts and rely on government grants to support their IPCC activities
The IPCC’s agenda is ...... not to discover the truth about how the world’s incredibly complex and ever-changing climate operates. It is, instead, to justify control of the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
IPCC arrives at this conclusion only by ignoring scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006
IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues
It violates the established rules and procedures that should be used when making scientific forecasts
It uses surface-based temperature records known to be inaccurate, and ignores satellite data showing patterns of warming in the atmosphere that are different from what models predict would occur if greenhouse gases were the cause of warming.
The IPCC continues to undervalue the overwhelming evidence that, on decadal and century-long time scales, the Sun and associated atmospheric cloud effects are responsible for much of past climate change.
IPCC’s shortcomings have been hidden from the public and policymakers, leading to an uncritical acceptance of its reports and conclusions"