The United Nations’ independent international scientific body for reviewing climate science has appointed an independent international scientific body to review the way it goes about its work (AP).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Rajendra Pachauri announced the decision to appoint the InterAcademy Council after meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York this afternoon. The council, a multinational organization that represents national science academies around the globe, plans to appoint an “independent evaluation group” to conduct the review later this month. The final report is expected by August.

Many hope the review will mark the beginning of the end of the controversy surrounding a single acknowledged glitch in the IPCC’s fourth assessment regarding global warming’s impact on the Himalayan glaciers. Subsequent allegations have arisen regarding the IPCC’s assessment of other impacts, but the document has largely held up to intense scrutiny. The Himilayan glacier mistake, roughly coinciding with a second scandal surrounding leaked emails from the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, sparked an uproar among global warming sceptics.

The review panel will look at everything from how the IPCC collects and reviews data to how it goes about reviewing and correcting potential mistakes. It will also take a close look at the role of “gray literature,” which covers the range of reports and information from government and activist groups that does not appear in traditional peer-review science journals. One thing it will not review is the science, as that remains the job of the IPCC.

Anything that can be done to improve IPCC procedures and hasten its ability to review and if necessary correct mistakes in the future would be welcomed by nearly all, but this process is unlikely to silence climate science’s most vociferous critics. After all, sceptics will surely argue that this is a panel of mainstream scientists reviewing a panel of mainstream scientists. It’s hard to get around that argument without getting rid of the scientists, but the IAC is doing its best to alleviate such fears.

Robert Dijkgraaf, co-chair of the IAC and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, summed it up this way:

“As with all our studies, the IAC will appoint scientists to this Independent Evaluation Group after an intensive vetting process designed to assure their scientific expertise, stature in the scientific community, a balance of scientific perspectives, and absence of personal conflicts of interest. These scientists will serve pro bono – only their travel and meeting expenses will be paid. The Independent Evaluation Group will not serve under obligation to any government, the IPCC, or to the United Nations.”