The IPCC is not infallible, and publishing research critical of the IPCC’s findings is legitimate science. But Boehmer-Christiansen is not only critical of the IPCC’s findings, she rejects the IPCC as an institution and accuses it of bias. In her view, what is acceptable as relevant to the question of climate change "is ultimately selected by a coalition of the climate policy community devoted to the Kyoto Protocol (governments), WMO devoted to meteorological research, the environmental lobby and, acting as their mouthpiece, the small IPCC leadership of government friendly science politicians." (Boehmer-Christiansen, 2004)
Such arguments do not operate in the realm of scientific debate or controversy; they imply unethical behaviour of the IPCC. When they are elevated to the editorial policy of a scientific journal they turn the journal into a mouthpiece for partisan science.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (2004) A response to "Summary of recent reports on climate change science" by Michael Manton. Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society 17, 42 - 45.