Leaving aside the question of biased referencing of the "science" by IPCC (its main writers have been citing each other, like a small club), it turns out that 30.15 per cent of IPCC references were to 'grey literature' (things like this blog).  [Source]

I know there are still a few die-hards who refuse to admit that:

(a) IPCC is a close-knit POLITICAL coterie that cherry picks papers, lies and fudges at every step;

(b) there is NO CONSENSUS among "97 per cent" of "climate scientists" about IPCC results (most oppose its wild conclusions);

(c) many IPCC authors have no academic qualifications;

(d) most IPCC authors do not understand the basics of statistics;

(e) NONE of IPCC's underlying models have tracked reality – thus disproving the hyped-up claims of the IPCC; and

(f) 30 per cent of IPCC citations were from non-peer reviewed publications.

I did call IPCC reports toilet paper in the past. Now I'm going to have to call this entire organisation a fraud – a MEGA FRAUD on mankind.

Let IPCC be dissolved IMMEDIATELY.

Related posts:

1. Second point for John Quiggin: to what extent does IPCC use peer reviewed literature?
2. John Quiggin, IPCC’s peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.
3. Could any half-wit have done FAR better than IPCC?
4. The most damning thing about IPCC is that ASSUMES that mankind is guilty, BEFORE starting its analysis
5. IPCC is desperately trying to recover its shattered reputation, but in vain
6. A proposal to replace IPCC with a genuine independent process that will tell us THE truth
7. Strip Al Gore and IPCC of their Nobel Prize and give it to these people
8. Tony Burke admits human fallibility. Now will “climate change” policies be reviewed, please?
9. This is what IPCC said in its FIRST report in 1990 before it was overtaken by FRAUD
10. IPCC reports = toilet paper?