Skip to comments.
UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 "F"s on Report Card (IPCC Lies )
| April 14, 2010
| Donna Laframboise editor
Posted on 04/14/2010 1:13:31 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
TORONTO -- 21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card released today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.
Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."
"We've been told this report is the gold standard," says Canadian blogger Donna Laframboise, who organized the online crowdsourcing effort to examine the references. "We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have been nowhere near a scientific journal."
Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As.
In November, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri disparaged non-peer-reviewed research in an interview with the Times of India (see the end of the article):
IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the
data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then
accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.
THE CITIZEN AUDIT REPORT IS HERE
contact: Donna Laframboise - NOconsensus.org AT gmail.com
Citizen Audit graphic IPCC graphic
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amazongate; carbontrade; climate; climatechange; climatechangedata; climategate; cowgate; czechgate; f21; glaciergate; globalgovernance; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; globalwarmingscandal; ipcc; pachauri; pachaurigate; scandinaviagate; unlies
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; 4horses+amule; Nervous Tick; Amagi; Beowulf; Tunehead54; Clive; ...
posted on 04/14/2010 1:14:32 PM PDT
(Warmists as "traffic light" apocalyptics: "Greens too yellow to admit they're really Reds."-Monckton)
To: steelyourfaith; SunkenCiv; Marine_Uncle; Fred Nerks; NormsRevenge; onyx; BOBTHENAILER; ...
Report on the IPCC ...pingaling!!
Something like 40% not peer reviewed. Sheesh!
The IPCC is merely a political body.
It tries to portray itself as a scientific organization but that fraud has been exposed.
posted on 04/14/2010 1:19:14 PM PDT
Toss the UN Bums out of NYC on their ear. (hope you hear my Italian accent like in the old mafia movies).
Maybe we could turn UN Plaza into a park instead of that cesspool.
posted on 04/14/2010 1:20:25 PM PDT
(I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
report card main findings detailed findings not-as-advertised quality assurance auditor list press-release
UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 "F"s on Report Card
- all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
- 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
- IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
- each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
- 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
- 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
- full report card here
- detailed results here
Citizen Audit Main Findings
released April 14, 2010
Table 1 [web image here]
(out of 44)
|% of chapters
receiving this grade
(59% & below)
BACKGROUND AND INTRO
United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes a report every six years. Often referred to as the "climate bible" the latest one was released in 2007 and is relied on by governments around the world. Billions of dollars are spent on national and international policies based on its findings. Judges consult it when trying cases. Scholars and journalists cite it thousands of times a year.
The IPCC report contains 44 chapters and is nearly 3,000 pages long. Written by people organized into three teams - Working Group 1, 2 and 3 - it consists of three smaller reports bundled into one.
PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE CLAIM
The chairman of the IPCC has declared repeatedly that the report is based solely on peer-reviewed literature. (This means research papers that have been submitted to an academic journal, scrutinized by anonymous referees, and frequently altered in order to qualify for publication. Although the peer-review process does not guarantee accuracy, the fact that research findings have undergone this process promotes a feeling of confidence.)
This Citizen Audit focused its attention on the peer-reviewed literature claim. A team of 43 volunteers from 12 countries examined the list of references at the end of each chapter. We sorted these references into two groups - articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals and other references. (Non-peer-reviewed material is often called "grey literature".) Then we calculated the percentage of references that do, indeed, appear to be peer-reviewed.
In elementary schools in the United States, students are assigned grades ranging from an A to an F, based on the mark they've achieved out of 100 (see Wikipedia's table here). Most parents would be alarmed if their child brought home a report card similar to the one received by the IPCC.
21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references that the IPCC received an F. The IPCC relied on peer-reviewed literature less than 60 percent of the time in these chapters.
5,587 references in the IPCC report were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents are press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups.
The line I used to always post when discussing the UN still applies:
Get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.
posted on 04/14/2010 1:22:23 PM PDT
To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
Lot's to munch on with this report....
Heads need to roll...starting with the clown from India....
Sorta like "grey water."
posted on 04/14/2010 1:30:25 PM PDT
(Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Chuck DeVore - CA Senator. Believe.)
finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.
Considering how many of those peers were picked not for their scientific knowledge but rather for their belief in global warming, I wouldn't put that much weight on the peer review process.
posted on 04/14/2010 1:30:26 PM PDT
(Obamacare: The 2010 version of the Intolerable Acts.)
This report supplies needed ammo for the corporations suing the EPA.
OK,...now I see where that came from...pretty incredible.
To: RogerFGay; Captain Ed; holdonnow
I agree wholeheartedly:
posted on 04/14/2010 4:09:40 PM PDT
("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
Twang! Aso! Are we to believe the AGW creeps where not being totally honest with us. Yet we find Pachauri and the rest of his crowd still collecting salaries for being crooks.
posted on 04/14/2010 4:16:18 PM PDT
(Honor must be earned....)
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson