[classicman]

In a scientific paper, each statement of fact will have a reference to the study that substantiated it. Typically a scientific paper will have dozens of references, perhaps fifty, whilst a larger document, such as this report, may have many hundred. Of these, some may be non-peer reviewed, e.g. personal communications between scientists, abstracts from conferences, unpublished data, etc. Theses are given a form of peer-review (I know my doctoral thesis was) and are legitimate references, indeed in my field the theses of one of the earlier scientists was practically required reading. Remember that Nobel prize winning work has been published in theses before.

The point is that none of these more "questionable" references are alone used to support a conclusion, they are merely part of a larger web of information. It seems people are overly keen to seek error here.

Frankly, I'm a scientist that is more sceptical about the political agenda of both climate change advocates and sceptics than the science around the subject. As far as I can tell, the science is largely sound, whilst my faith in the good intentions of politicians is not.
Dr. Philip Thomas