Andy Lacis has added some comments to the DotEarth thread prompted by my article here. Here are some excerpts:
First, let me state clearly that I view the IPCC AR4 Report as a very successful and useful scientific summary of our current understanding of global climate and global climate change....
...I believe that the review process needs to be clear and to the point so as not to be misunderstood, i.e., it is both barrels at point blank range, whenever warranted. From this you can see that science, or at least some aspects of the scientific process, make for a significantly ruthless game. If people perceive that your science might be questionable, they are expected to let you know about it in no uncertain terms. That is in part why the scientific review process has evolved to be anonymous. Science is about factual correctness, and not about consensus...
I am actually encouraged by the all criticisms that the IPCC AR4 report is receiving. This means that people are reading, and not ignoring, the report, and are (hopefully) forming a better understanding of the issues involved. Any science document when it is published, is being deliberately put forth as a public target to be ruthlessly attacked to see if it will withstand any and all criticisms that can be mustered. That is the nature of science. Factual correctness, and not consensus, is the objective. Thus, criticisms are welcome, encouraged, and solicited. Any errors large and small, omissions, or other shortcomings need to be identified and corrected. That, after all, is the science objective of the IPCC report.
The other aspect of the IPPC AR4 report is the political posturing component as exemplified by the Executive Summaries. Here, the need for group consensus appears to trump the need for factual correctness. This component of the report is of course a very important. After all, global climate change has important ramifications that are going to impact the environment, economy, and social fabric of virtually all of the nations participating in the report. (Why else would they address policy makers in the report if that were not the case?)
The most severe criticisms of my IPCC review were leveled at this political consensus aspect of the IPCC report that tended to spill back unto how the science was being described and presented. More on this topic later.
I think that's a pretty useful set of statements, and corroborates what I've been saying about politicisation of the reports and the unscientific nature of the alleged IPCC consensus.