On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:37:20 +0000 (UTC), Jerry Peters
wrote:

I'd like to see some real peer review of AGW. By scientists other than
the climastrologist in crowd.

Those doing peer reviews are not suppose to be disclosed to the author
or general public. They're all anonymous. In the few cases where
I've been involved (not with the IPCC), a paper is submitted to a
large number of potential reviewers. For the IPCC, it's about 350
individuals that have signed up. Of those, none have the time to
comment in detail on every paper that is awaiting review. About 50
reviews are usually submitted of which about 10 are sometimes deemed
to be ummm... biased. Eventually, the reviews are submitted to the
author so that he can modify his report to be more closely aligned
with the orthodoxy, or it doesn't get accepted by the IPCC. I
couldn't find any info on the exact number of editors that make the
final determination.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf

I once dug into what it takes to become a member of the IPCC. I can't
find the reference, but as I recall, it was fairly minimal. Time and
willingness to participate was the major requirement.

In particular, I'd like to see some
statisticians review some of the statistical techniques used by Mann et
al.

Some of the members of the IPCC don't particularly like Mann:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018173/climategate-sack-no-longer-credible-michael-mann-from-ipcc-urges-climatologist/
Here's a video interview with Michael Mann on the topic of the recent
email mess.
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=28984389001
Draw your own conclusions.

Loehle did some work pounding out the inconsistencies and missing
events in the proxy temperature data. See:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/
His statistics and math were carefully reviewed by J. Huston
McCulloch:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/SupplementaryInfo.pdf
He found some oddities, which were immediately corrected by the
author:
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf
This is the way such reports should be handled, but usually we just
see the summaries and conclusions.


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS