“The IPCC cites 18,000 references in the AR4; the vast majority of these are peer-reviewed scientific journal papers. The IPCC maintains a clear guideline on the responsible use of so-called “gray” literature, which are typically reports by other organizations or governments. Especially for Working Groups 2 and 3 (but in some cases also for 1) it is indispensable to use gray sources, since many valuable data are published in them: reports by government statistics offices, the International Energy Agency, World Bank, UNEP and so on. This is particularly true when it comes to regional impacts in the least developed countries, where knowledgeable local experts exist who have little chance, or impetus, to publish in international science journals. Reports by non-governmental organizations like the WWF can be used [...] but any information from them needs to be carefully checked [...] (Source).”

If it doesn’t shake your faith, I wonder why.  AGW dogma, such as “it’s all peer reviewed” is a scam.

Just one example:  The INDUSTRY claims “peer review” on all its scientists’ postulations, presuming that such solidarity will intimidate non-believers.  How does the INDUSTRY hope to convince a scientist of its integrity when, for example, 5,587 of 18,531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible are found to NOT peer reviewed?

So when the AGW INDUSTRY actually LOSES converts, why is it surprising?