Is it all peer-reviewed?

Jo Nova writes:

It’s a case of Big-Spin and Bluster. It’s what they do: aggressively push a simple message, a theme, a piece of marketing, and like all the rest of their audacious PR, it’s at best a half-truth, and in this case a lie.

Rajendra Pachauri states:

"IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin."

As usual, it’s honest volunteers who have conscientiously tested the IPCC by going through 18,500 references. And the final total? Fully 5,600, or 30%, of their references are not peer reviewed.

Donna LaFramboise at NoConsensus has coordinated the dedicated team (that is a lot of references to go through).

How many times do we need to show the IPCC are incompetent and dishonest?