However, the Committee believes that the nature of the IPCC's task (i.e., in presenting a series
of expert judgments on issues of great societal relevance) demands that the IPCC pay special attention to issues of independence and bias to maintain the integrity of, and public confidence in, its results.
They add that by using this comparison the model quantifies expertise — or the
value of expert judgments — as being equal to a specific number of data points collected in the field.
Though, to be fair, there are rarely just two sides to a scientific disagreement: interpreting data can be tricky and nuanced, and oftentimes a certain
amount of expert judgment is required.
Monster simplification is formalized in the IPCC AR3 and AR4 by guidelines for characterizing uncertainty in a consensus approach
consisting of expert judgment in the context of a subjective Bayesian analysis (Moss and Schneider 2000).