Roger Pielke Jr. has a post about the coming inquiry into the way the IPCC operates.
It sounds like it holds some promise, but the panel may yet be subject to the usual games – stacking its membership with pro-AGW people, etc.
All of this seems to me wasted breath.
Some will believe its report, some will not, not much will change in the IPCC process.
At this point, the game must change. It must become realistic rather than idealistic.
The IPCC was created because its findings were going to be the basis for political change.
It is therefore, a very highly politically charged body, no matter what you do. Everyone knows it. So you need some way of draining the political biases out of it. So it must emulate and take as its model political commissions, not scientific bodies. In the political model, you put an equal number of members of both competing positions on either side. For example, you have 4 members who do not agree with AGW, and 4 who do. In the process of arguing between the two sides, common ground is reached. They can issue a report on where they agree – this will narrow the differences. Then, on the things they do not agree on, more debate takes place, more research is done, over time, and more consensus – real consensus – is eventually reached.
The problem is that IPCC was set up with the purpose of manufacturing a consensus where there was none. It was used to browbeat questioners into shape.