The IPCC involves numerous experts in the preparation of its reports. However, chapter authors are frequently asked to summarize current controversies and disputes in which they themselves are professionally involved, which invites bias. Related to this is the problem that chapter authors may tend to favor their own published work by presenting it in a prominent or flattering light. Nonetheless the resulting reports tend to be reasonably comprehensive and informative. Some research that contradicts the hypothesis of greenhouse gas-induced warming is under-represented, and some controversies are treated in a one-sided way, but the reports still merit close attention.
A more compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself. Consequently it is useful to have independent experts read the underlying report and produce a summary of the most pertinent elements of the report.
Finally, while the IPCC enlists many expert reviewers, no indication is given as to whether they disagreed with some or all of the material they reviewed. In previous IPCC reports many expert reviewers have lodged serious objections only to find that, while their objections are ignored, they are acknowledged in the final document, giving the impression that they endorsed the views expressed therein.
А вот на сайте Junk Science, где выложили пиратскую копию, так сказать, почти-окончательного варианта доклада Первой рабочей группы ("Second-order draft"), об этом написали проще и прозрачнее:
Despite the exhortation: "PLEASE DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, OR DISTRIBUTE THE DRAFT REPORT" we feel we have been left with no choice by the bizarre actions of the IPCC. What kind of "science" distributes a summary and then withholds the underlying report for a further three months editing to make it concur with the already distributed summary? Don't believe it? Neither did we but the plain language statement of intent is here (search for "grammatical" -- it's on page 4 of 15) and the original IPCC procedures document is (was) here -- in their words:
"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."
Surely science has not degenerated to the point that research must now conform to pre-released summaries, even in the purely political IPCC.
If climate change is supposed to be such an urgent problem then what possible justification can there be for hiding the supporting evidence? We can think of none and, after some agonizing (we most assuredly do not want the draft review process to become any more secretive than it already is), we have decided to make the draft publicly available so that you can decide for yourselves whether the much-leaked hysterics of recent weeks truly represent the best available research and opinion.
(за последний линк - спасибо юзеру shkrobius)
P.S. Ниже юзер vasja_iz_aa обращает внимание, что цитата из доклада IPCC, приведенная в предисловии к http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4 , помещена в такой контекст, что позволяет увидеть в ней больше того, что в ней содержится. Это не меняет общей оценки того факта, что выводы публикуются и рекламируются за полгода до базового текста, то есть без возможности сравнить их, но подтверждает ту истину, что критикуя чужие ошибки, надо быть исключительно аккуратным самому, чтобы не подставиться по мелочи и не дискредитировать собственную критику.