Read here and here. Recently, everybody got a real hoot from the ludicrous, outrageous UN lie that 50 million climate refugees would be roaming the globe in 2010. It was so totally embarrassing to be caught promulgating that whopper that the UN even tried to make it quietly disappear, but that didn't go as planned due to its ineptness.
And, of course, there were the recent events of IPCC individuals being involved in the embarrassing Climategate, Amazongate, and Himalayagate events, which further endowed the UN and its agencies with a well deserved reputation of deceit, misconduct and misrepresentation. Unfortunately, the sad state of affairs of IPCC climate science never seems to end.
As blogger Donna Laframboise keeps finding, the grandiose claim that all the climate and economic research backing the IPCC reports is "peer-reviewed" is a shockingly, bald-faced, spectacular lie that only leftist/socialists/greenie bureaucrats would truly love and appreciate. In some sections of the IPCC report, Donna has found that listed peer-reviewed reports represent only 25% of all listed "research", in contrast to the official claims of 100%.
"“The science is absolutely first rate,” Pachauri declared: “The IPCC doesn’t do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.”...A year later, in June 2008, during a visit to New Zealand, Pachauri told a journalist: “People can have confidence in the IPCC’s conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature.”...A few weeks afterward, in San Francisco, he 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.”"
"...the IPCC discusses emissions reduction studies. Tol points out that although the third paragraph cites three documents – Stern (2006), Anderson (2006) and Barker (2006a) – not one of them has been peer-reviewed. Indeed, of the seven studies mentioned in total on this page only one was published in a peer-reviewed journal. (All reference material for that chapter is listed here.)...Tol further notes that on another page, devoted to the rather important question of what effect reducing emissions might have on employment (in the US climate change policies are currently being sold to be public as job creation plans), a total of six “studies are cited to support the notion that emission reduction creates jobs. Only one of the six is peer-reviewed.”...If this seems rather sloppy, Tol says it gets worse."
One would think after all this evidence it would be needless to say this, but just to play it safe:
When it comes to honesty and objective science, it would greatly behoove the world's policymakers to avoid ever quoting the UN and its agencies, such as the IPCC, as the source of reliable information and expert analysis. The public is becoming ever more aware of the global source of misinformation, malfeasance and scientific incompetence in its midst.