Read here. We've written previously about the joke of the claimed 2,500 climate scientists writing the latest IPCC report, and the idiocy of "consensus" science, and then how experts back in 2008 we're saying the IPCC global warming science was a Rube Goldberg fiasco. That was then. But we never imagined the mountain of lies about the IPCC peer-reviews that the entire scientific would condone and constantly perpetuate. (Thank goodness for the blogging community, for it is they who are constantly uncovering the climate science culture of corruption.)
With that said, clearly the overall scientific community should no longer be blindly trusted, in any capacity. All statements, claims, assertions and predictions made by any scientist should be triple-checked, and just to be safe, forensic audits should be conducted. "Peer-reviewed" has been exposed as a joke, and there is no way that this degree of lies and fraud being revealed in the IPCC climate science arena is limited to just this scientific field. Let's be honest here: scientists who have sold their souls for government and/or NGO funding are not to be trusted - they lost that "right."
"A few weeks afterward, in San Francisco, he [Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] again told an audience that IPCC reports are "based on peer-reviewed literature." On that occasion, he mocked the idea that his organization might "pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." IPCC reports rely, he insisted, "on very rigorous research which has stood the test of scrutiny through peer reviews."...."A couple of days ago I blogged about a chapter in the latest report which, I discovered, relies on peer-reviewed sources only 58 percent of the time. That number seems shockingly low when one considers that the IPCC's expert reviewers complained bitterly about the quality of the citations at the time the report was being written....Yet that may be the IPCC on a good day. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3's report - which I randomly chose to examine next - is far worse. Only 61 of the 260 references relied on in that chapter have their feet firmly planted in peer-reviewed literature – an abysmal 24 percent. Put another way, three-quarters of the material cited there is grey literature."