“Contrarians” have long complained that the IPCC process is deficient because it enables science to be distorted for political ends. Now the “alarmists” have echoed that call, because the recent IPCC Working Group I report wasn’t sufficiently alarmist for them. IPCC ”apparatchiks” have defended the group against both sets of accusations. Roger Pielke Jr examines the various claims and concludes:

Everyone seems to agree that the IPCC reflects a political agenda, the question is who’s [sic] political agenda? Is it that of the participating scientists? Do participating scientists in fact have a “political agenda” or instead do they have many competing political agendas? Or is the political agenda of the IPCC that of the participating governments? But do participating governments in fact have a “political agenda” or many competing political agendas? The answers to the questions are all unclear. The IPCC tries to have things both ways by asserting governmental participation without governmental influence. This makes no sense, and participation is meaningless absent influence.

Roger has some suggestions for improving the process, but I can’t imagine they’ll be acceptable to those who argue that science trumps economic and political considerations.