Donna Laframboise has published her book on the IPCC. It compares what the media and the IPCC leadership say about the IPCC to what facts can be found on the IPCC by any tenacious one with an internet connection.
The result is not pretty. Two things stand out for me: The repeated lies about the high standard of evidence ("peer-reviewed literature only") and about the high quality of the authors ("leading experts only").
There has been considerable discussion of the book at Bishop Hill, Climate Audit and WUWT. Shub has a thoughtful piece. The most lively discussion is at Climate Etc. Peter Gleick, who wrote a review on Amazon that is as nasty as it is ill-informed (see WUWT) also weighs in, but refuses to be specific.
Laframboise argues that the IPCC should be disbanded.
I disagree. First, it is pointless. The IPCC will continue to exist. Second, there is a need for authoritative and neutral assessment of the large literature on a subject as complex and relevant as climate change.
Therefore, we need to improve the IPCC. Much has been said and written about that. I think the starting point should be to dump Pachauri, who is nothing but an embarrassment, and to stop telling fibs.