And NOAA and NASA? Have they compromised their scientists the same way you claim the IPCC has? I just don't understand how the sway of research grants and new labs might incite the kind of scientific ethics violations you imply the IPCC has committed.
From a member's article on the relatively transparent process of their assessments:
Is there room for political interference here? In the 20 years that I have been a scientist with the IPCC,
I have not encountered a government trying at this stage to influence the assessment beyond making suggestions that would genuinely help its remit or focus.
There is then a call for authors who may be nominated by any government or organisation (research institutions, universities, businesses and NGOs).
The co-chairs and working group bureaux scan the research records of the nominees and seek the best match between available skills and the expertise needed to cover the fields of the assessment.
Is this another area open to political interference? I genuinely think we choose the best available, and without political motive.
From more than 4,000 nominated scientists, about 600 were chosen as authors in the Fourth Assessment; and all those not chosen are automatically included amongst reviewers of the drafts.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | The IPCC: As good as it gets