The recommendations of the IAC report rephrased as problems with AR4.

1. There was no Executive Committee and no such voice from outside of the climate community.

2. There was no Executive Director. Should be a senior scientist for 1 term only.

3. There were no conflict of interest policies and hence probably conflicts of interest.

4. Poorly defined roles and responsibilities of key participants, including the IPCC Chair.

5. Key IPCC leaders too long in office, including the IPCC Chair, Working Group Co-chairs

6. Review Editors did not exercise their authority to ensure that reviewers’ comments are adequately considered by the authors and that genuine controversies are adequately reflected in the report.

7. Response to reviewer comments was not targetted or effective. Authors did not provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors

8. The qualitative level-of-understanding scale was not used in their Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary,

9. Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) were not used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence. Authors should indicate the basis for assigning a probability to an outcome or event

10. The likelihood scale was not stated in terms of probabilities (numbers) in addition to words

11. Lead Authors did not provide a traceable account of how they arrived at their ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood that an outcome will occur.

12. Formal expert elicitation procedures were not used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.

13. The communications strategy was not transparent, rapid or thoughtful.

14. The process and criteria for selecting participants for scoping meetings was not transparent.

15. Bureau members, including the IPCC Chair, did not have the highest scholarly qualifications or adequate leadership skills.

16. No formal set of criteria and processes for selecting Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors.

17. Lead Authors did not document that a range of scientific viewpoints has been considered, and Coordinating Lead Authors and Review Editors did not satisfy themselves that due consideration was given to properly documented alternative views.

18. The procedure for the use of unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature was weak and unenforced,

19. The best regional experts were not engaged.

20. In the Summary for Policy Makers, there was political interference with the scientific results.