|
Don't confuse the IPCC reports with the research papers. The IPCC reports are intended for a wide audience, most of whom have at best basic scientific understanding. They are based on the primary scientific work but are not in themselves that scientific work.
If you think the IPCC reports don't include uncertainty you haven't read them. They do indeed include uncertainty. They also make clear they use very specific (but plausible) criteria in suggesting possible outcomes (for the scenarios they describe).
They also describe where the areas of uncertainty lie and make suggestions about where future research effort should go i.e. what questions need to be answered.
Because they are committee efforts they are very conservative, with consensus only around things that there is a lot of evidence for. It is more likely that things are worse than described in the IPCC reports than it is they are better.
No, peer review doesn't mean that a paper is necessarily accurate. It does weed out the obviously bad methods.
Peer review is conducted anonymously. Sometimes in an esoteric area it is difficult to find people who are competent to review the paper, or it is possible to guess who has contributed to a paper based on the work. As far as is possible it is done without the reviewers knowing who has contributed to the paper, with the work being assessed on its merits.
|