enable an interested and motivated reader to draw his/her own conclusions. More general information about the methods, data sources and assumptions used could be included in the introduction (see reviews of specific chapters for suggestions).
The document heavily relies on original research and does not include sufficient peer-reviewed literature. Although the committee finds that the results presented in the document are consistent with scientific literature and that the document appears to be objective, the document relies too heavily on original, non-peer-reviewed work. The authors should include more discussion of findings in the scientific literature and how the unpublished findings compare with previously published findings (especially for sections 3.1 through 3.3). While the authors provide compelling evidence supporting their recommendations, greater lengths are needed to distinguish their work from peer-reviewed literature. At present, it is difficult to determine how much of the document is collective opinioned. The authors should explicitly distinguish the findings from the peer-reviewed literature from those derived from original work. The report should give precedence to peer-review literature whenever possible.
The document and its language should be clarified. The committee notes that the document lacks a suitable table of contents and that section and subsection headings are generally too wordy. At the level of language, the phrasing regarding attribution is awkward. It is more correct to say that one attributes climate variations to particular causes, not that one attributes causes to climate variations. Also, one should speak of causes of variations, not causes for variations.