It seems it is not just the IPCC science review process that is under increasing scrutiny, but also the role of some of the key climate scientists in determining what does and does not get published in scientific journals. It appears some of the IPCC's lead authors have been actively making sure certain scientific papers did not get published in scientific journals, so that they did not subsequently then have to be considered in IPCC reports.

A report in the UK Guardian details the results of an intensive investigation into the stolen emails at the centre of the climate science scandal. It identifies that some of the key climate scientists appear to have actively used the (supposedly) anonymous peer-review process to make sure scientific papers that were critical of aspects of the 'consensus' on human-induced global warming did not get published in scientific journals. This, of course, then meant that those critical papers would not be considered in the compilation of subsequent IPCC reports. As more and more of these revelations about the processes used by the IPCC emerge, it becomes more and more inevitable that a major overhaul of these processes will be required.