UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 "F"s on Report Card (IPCC Lies )

noconsensus.org ^ | April 14, 2010 | Donna Laframboise editor

[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 Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report – finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.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

 

 

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

H/T to the JoNova website:

The IPCC: 5,600 small white lies

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Report on the IPCC ...pingaling!!

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Something like 40% not peer reviewed. Sheesh!

[NeilGus]

The IPCC is merely a political body.

It tries to portray itself as a scientific organization but that fraud has been exposed.

[K-oneTexas]

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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

                                                                 

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

grade	chapters (out of 44)	% of chapters receiving this grade
F (59% & below)	21	48
D (60-69%)	4	9
C (70-79%)	6	14
B (80-89%)	5	11
A (90-100%)	8	18

Table 1   [web image here]

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.

[NeilGus]

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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Lot's to munch on with this report....

Heads need to roll...starting with the clown from India....

[colorado tanker]

"grey literature"

Sorta like "grey water."

[NormsRevenge]

I like that

F²¹

[KarlInOhio]

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.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

This report supplies needed ammo for the corporations suing the EPA.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Related threads:

Co2 is the magic gas that makes plant grow

The new math – IPCC version

IPCC Gets a Triple F on their scheme discussed in the second link.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OK,...now I see where that came from...pretty incredible.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping!

[TXnMA]

I agree wholeheartedly:

[Marine_Uncle]

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.