“Bias And Concealment In The IPCC Process: The “Hockey-Stick” Affair And Its Implications”

A new article by David Holland is here.

Excerpts:

In medicine, despite centuries of study, there are few things absolutely safe or efficacious but we assume that most medical professionals would not propose medicines or procedures that they knew were poor in either respect. However, we have learnt through experience that it is unwise to allow pharmaceutical manufacturers, or others with a conflict of interest, to be the judges of these qualities. Carefully controlled studies are mandated specifically to avoid bias in the judgements as to which medicines and procedures are appropriate. High standards of record keeping and disclosure are enforced. It is inconceivable today that the developer of any medicine or procedure would be allowed to conceal test data or take a leading role in a review process that approved it. In comparison, climate research is in its infancy and almost entirely unregulated.
...
The IPCC WGI is effectively run by small groups of inbred scientists from UCAR, CRU and the Hadley Centre, who have a strong and disproportionate influence on its processes and agenda. Rather than the consensus of thousands of scientists, the IPCC conclusions represent the passionate belief of a small number of scientists whose funding and research careers depend heavily upon continuing alarm.