Bob Murray, freelance historian and one of nature’s gentlemen, made a nice remark about CCTF2020 in the course of a longer piece, in the latest Quadrant.. Here is an extract

“From an Australian viewpoint, the IPCC is like a multinational corporation, with the CSIRO and BOM, its main arms here, effectively a branch office.

IPCC procedure is to assess research papers by thousands of scientists from around the world. The eventual result is a “synthesis” and technical report issued every few years. There have been five so far, the last compiled in 2014 for 2015. The next is due in 2022. Dozens of “authors” and assistants, about half from English-language backgrounds, write the reports, meant as a summary of the vast research. They are then submitted for approval to UN-approved committees before being published on the internet. Some observers wonder if the time lag between the 2015 and 2022 reports bears out the suspicion that there is revisionism in the ranks, internal disagreement about what to say next.

These IPCC reports are among the most unsatisfactory I have ever read. Not only is there much technical language; dogmatically, they have little sense of evaluating, after experience, the original theory and assumptions. There is more about what they predict will happen in the future under various scenarios, how world action could alleviate the dangers, and the degrees of confidence in scenarios and assumptions analysed. More questions are begged than answered.

The IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts 2020 has detailed discussion of many critical points, such as measurement controversies and water vapour. It would be good to see them debated openly rather than dismissed as from the wrong tribe. The IPCC, CSIRO and BOM websites are on the internet, as are those of respectable sceptics like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen (under their names) in the US. Views questioning the IPCC, however, are grossly under-publicised worldwide.”

The whole piece is worth a read (currently paywalled).