While Oxburgh writes a 5 page book report that most college professors would likely reject due to incompleteness, we have this report from Donna Laframboise of Toronto and a team of citizen auditors. The mission? Determine how much of AR4 met IPCC’s own standards for peer review by reviewing every reference in the report to determine if it comes from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, or if they “simply made stuff up”, like glacier melt dates.
21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.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, working papers, student theses, 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. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of 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.
Between Oxburgh’s failure to write a credible report and this obvious failure of IPCC to follow their own rules, is it any wonder why people are beginning to laugh at the “robustness” oft touted in climate science?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Off topic, sorry; Low solar activity link to cold UK winters
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8615789.stm
“But they added that the phenomenon only affected a limited region and would not alter the overall global warming trend. ” *rolls eyes*
“simply made stuff up”
Don’t even need acorns for this falling sky. It’s just falling. Take their word and fork over the cash.
I know this is somewhat OT.
I suppose we can afford to shut down our space program.
We can always design a computer model of a spacecraft delivering a telescope to the lunar pole. The model could simulate the images of earth and the cosmos which might have been captured using such a telescope, without actually going there and doing it. These images would be accurate and useful in the post-normal sense.
The model might even result in lots of virtual spin-off technology.
To be fully effective, the model should simulate the drama, the excitement and the sense of accomplishment of such an exploratory venture.
21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F
Ya, that does sound like government work.
BTW, George Bernard Shaw and Yasser Arafat won Nobel Prizes. So it’s ‘anything goes’ there.
is it any wonder why people are beginning to laugh at the “robustness” oft touted in climate science?
I’ve been laughing a long time.
Johnny D (18:00:26) :
James Sexton:
“To be perfectly honest, I really don’t care about whether the science backs up climate change or not.”
That pretty much says it all right there.
That’s really cool man. Do you really think you can take something out of context like that? I mean really, all anyone would have to do is scroll up as see this….
“To be perfectly honest, I really don’t care about whether the science backs up climate change or not. I’ve known our climate was in a constant state of change for some time now.”
Sorry if you didn’t pay attention during your 5th grade science class, but the climate changing has been common knowledge for most self-aware entities for some time now. You know, carrying the “scientist” label doesn’t mean they hold some obscure yet unequivocal truth about mankind and nature. What’s next for you? Do we need to spend a few billion taxpayer dollars/pounds to inform you that lightening can be dangerous? Maybe Mike Mann can do a study to show you how lightening is caused by man’s methane emissions and we can find some totalitarian cure for that too?
You know, you could have just honestly engaged me in a conversation, or even actually answered my question. But, again, it’s common knowledge alarmist won’t and can’t. It probably goes back to their attention span in the 5th grade.
Hi all
As far as I’m concerned…
1-) A research task was undertaken
2-) The purpose of the research has been clearly stated
3-) Conclusions were drawn and tabled
4-) ALL the work, including the working papers, have been made available for all to see, read and check
The above was achieved by a bunch of volunteers. Whichever country you live in, don’t you think your government, with all it’s resources, should have done this before accepting the report as gospel?
It may not be perfect, but I’m proud of the work we did and of Donna Laframboise for organising it.
p.s. To those commenters questioning Donnas integrity, I for one found her a pleasure to work with, totally professional and consistent, and I would readily put my hand up for any future project she may undertake
hro001:
My contention was that the term “published” in Annex 2 may not mean published in a peer-reviewed publication but instead published in a form that was available to the public. The evidence seems to point to the latter definition.
In any case, after reading your response and that of Donna Laframboise, I’m left wondering why you wasted all this time just to answer the question:
“Are Rajendra Pachauri’s, “science” journalists’ and other media mavens’ claims that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment reports are “all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature” supported by the evidence in the references?”
when 5 minutes spent reading IPCC procedures would’ve given you the answer. I think the likely reason is that you, like the “media mavens” who also got it wrong, just accepted Pachauri’s statement without fact checking actual IPCC procedures and now you’re left scrambling to find an actual use for your report card project. It certainly doesn’t cast any doubt on the IPCC report itself. To do that, you’d actually have to spend time looking at the grey literature references, see how they were used, and then determine whether they were appropriate.
Hey, I think I just got an idea for a book…
Baa Humbug (19:15:44) :
You guys did great. And give Donna Laframboise a hug, kiss, handshake…….what ever is appropriate. I can’t imagine the effort it took. It was illuminating. 133 responses and counting. Pretty good. You know it’s good when the trolls come out to play.
@ur momisugly Todd Brunner (19:30:36) :
It isn’t whether the rules stated they did or didn’t use peer-reviewed sources, or even whether they were allowed by the rules. It goes deeper than that. The article of this thread directly quotes Pachauri. You think he forgot what the rules were? He was/is in charge of the damned thing. If he doesn’t know what the rules are about including or excluding material, then the contributors are including and excluding material at their leisure conforming to their own biases.(We all knew that already, but this is proof.) Or it is occurring with the approval of Pachauri and he’s intentionally misleading the public. (Again, we all knew that, but this is DIRECT PROOF!) All we have to do is give Pachy a test to see how cognate he is of reality. I suspect we’ll find that Pachy is cognate, the subordinates acted with his approval and did include or exclude material at their leisure according to their personal biases and without regard to the scientific merits of the work referenced. We’ve already seen that with the Himalayan glacier melt reference and others.
You have to laugh at the likes of Todd Brunner haughtily dismissing this evidence on the premise that it was well known that the IPCC. Funny, but I don’t recall him trying to reality check claims made by Pachauri, Ban Ka Boom (my nickname for the UN secretary general), the EPA (which quoted Pachauri’s “mis-statements”), and all the mainstream media outlets (which Donna’s report cites) that fell for Pachauri’s 100% peer review crap hook line and sinker.
So Todd, where were you? One of those who enjoys deceipt when it suits your particular religious belief?
Donna and volunteers – well done!
I think that this topic points out how the process was manipulated. As I recall it was stated many times that of you wanted to present a “negative point of view” regarding AGW all one need do was write a paper, get it peer reviewed and it could (might?) be included in the IPCC assessment.
The work by Donna Laframboise and her team of volunteers was worthwhile for one point alone: Clearly the “science” and “policy” work commissioned or reviewed for the IPCC reports need not be peer reviewed if it was “on message”, i.e. it supported the “so-call consensus view”. I really do think that the point is quite clear now. In other words — “get your work peer reviewed for inclusion” was just so much balderdash and a smoke screen. You gained inclusion and became part of the “in crowd” by going along to get along.
If you can’t draw any other conclusion from the work it should be clear that the work need not be peer reviewed — it need only provide the right message.
Todd Brunner (19:30:36) :
hro001:
My contention was that the term “published” in Annex 2 may not mean published in a peer-reviewed publication but instead published in a form that was available to the public. The evidence seems to point to the latter definition.
=========
Perhaps so; you do seem to have a penchant for contention. But the issue on the table – and the relevant part of the paragraph to which I was responding in my post – was as follows:
Your claim was “several …unpublished“.
As I noted in my response (17:53:55), I found 6, and I listed all of them for you (including your “example page”)
In my books 6 out of 18, 631 (total references) still does not constitute “several”. Nor, for that matter, does 6 out of 5,587 (non-peer-reviewed references). I concede that YMMV may vary in either or both cases.
I’m somewhat relieved to learn that it is apparently not your contention that the other 5,581 references that were not sourced to a publication which indicates that material contained therein has been peer-reviewed must be reclassified as “peer-reviewed” because they do not contain the word “Unpublished”. Nor do you contend that the IPCC has .. uh … redefined “peer-reviewed” journal, without letting the rest of the world know.
This is good news. Doesn’t do much to enhance the veracity or significance of your “you will find several … unpublished”, though.
BUT … what on God’s green earth does any anomalous “interpretation” of “published” have to do with your finding – and suggesting that others search for – “Unpublished”?!
Now, it may have escaped your notice that at the slightest hint of criticism – or questioning of the tenets of the climate bible, Pachauri brandishes “all/only/solely/entirely peer-reviewed” like a cruxifix before vampires. And we all know that, while he is quite possibly the most zealous, he’s certainly not the only one. But he’d probably get an A for consistency in this regard (and an F for truthfulness).
So while you’re dreaming up an escape from the published/unpublished quandary that you’ve created for yourself, Mr. Brunner, maybe you’d care to tell us what your “interpretation” of each of the following expressions might be:
all peer-reviewed
only peer-reviewed
solely peer-reviewed
entirely peer-reviewed
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php
And do try not to move the goal-posts – again – in your reply. Moving goal-posts is almost the equivalent of fooling with mother nature, and that’s not nice.
Dave Worley (18:41:06) :
“I know this is somewhat OT.
I suppose we can afford to shut down our space program.
We can always design a computer model of a spacecraft delivering a telescope to the lunar pole.”
This is not a bad example, but if you think about it for awhile:
Modelling is the reason why you can send the astronauts out there
and get them safely back. To simplify boldly: if you are anti-model,
you are anti-science and why are you then in a debate about science?
Robert E. Phelan (17:51:18) :
mikael pihlström (15:42:38) :
Really, you cannot reason like that. Computer models are part of
science. Period.
“Terrific. Another diktat from the hive-mind to go along with “The Science is Settled.” The models are nothing more than the articulation of a theory – a tool to generate hypotheses that can be tested through empirical observation”.
Where is the conflict here? I said models are part of science. You
describe that part. I agree on the methodological description, but not
on the conclusion concerning IPCC models.
You will have to admit, that in the sceptic movement it is becoming
commonplace, to dogmatically look for the word ‘model’ and then
declare the science invalid.
Someone point out my mistake but a book not based on total facts is a book of fiction?
James Sexton:
“You know, carrying the “scientist” label doesn’t mean they hold some obscure yet unequivocal truth about mankind and nature.”
Well, of course, but when it comes to climate science, I trust climate scientists more than I trust others. Actually, I would call it “obscure” since true scientific expertise in climate takes years of intense study, not months of blog grazing. But what I’ve gathered from your comment is that no amount of scientific evidence will change your opinion, making engagement futile.
hro001:
I can’t really understand what your getting at here. What is my “published/unpublished quandry”? It seems like you are trying to argue that “several” can’t mean “6 out of 18,631”. Please elaborate.
And I’ve already said I agree that Pachauri and any other media source that said the IPCC contained only peer-reviewed material was wrong. Like many people I discovered this fact years ago when I decided to check what their official procedures were. So Pachauri says something wrong about the IPCC report and you, for some reason, decide to grade the IPCC report based on his incorrect statement. How is this of value?
This quote from Pachauri is particularly telling and ironic: “Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, …”
The total absence of published data hasn’t stopped them from using any of the supposedly historical reconstructions. Not only isn’t the data published but we have all witnessed 20 years of mendacity and obfuscation by the team trying to hide the data, the method, the sources…
There is nothing “Science” about this process. This is simply a religious exercise. The “scientific method” used by Jones, Mann, Schmidt and a host of others promoting an agenda would not be adequate to earn a passing grade in a decent ninth grade science course yet it becomes “settled science”. The peer reviewers obviously didn’t do their job.
Todd Brunner (05:04:39) : Phil Clarke (16:30:20) : see below
“So Pachauri says something wrong about the IPCC report and you, for some reason, decide to grade the IPCC report based on his incorrect statement. How is this of value?”
Indeed. How is this of great value? and is it fair & balanced? as the
saying goes. I do however see potential value in the exercise,
provided it is not disseminated further under the propagandistic
slogan:
21 of 44 =F, 5600 grey references, 1 discredited IPCC report!
Because, a citizen panel generally is what scientists should crave for:
involving citizens in the process creating greater understanding of
science and science/policy interactions. There are also difficulties;
Phil Clarke (16:30:20) :
I then took a reference classified as ‘not peer-reviewed’ and looked
it up:
Gritsevsky, A., and N. Nakicenovic, 2002: Modelling uncertainty of
induced technological change. In: Technological change and the environment, A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, W.D. Nordhaus, (eds.).
Resources for the Future, pp. 251-279.
Certainly, the cited article is a book chapter, and books are not peer-reviewed, but somehow our ‘citizen auditors’ managed to
miss the fact that the it is a reprint from the very much peer-reviewed Energy policy, and it has been cited an impressive 131 times in the literature. It took me about 2 minutes with Google Scholar to
discover this.
[ and to complicate; some books are nowadays peer-reviewed MP]
We would be demanding a lot from non-specialists! and afterwards
possibly, would have to criticise them (audit, public discussions).
Maybe include a board of scientists for advice on the methodology?
Not sitting at the same table during the work, but available. Then,
this board could take part of the rap.
The question of what Pachauri/IPCC has actually said is not totally
clear to me, but I guess he could be rebuked . However, are
you all aware that Pachauri (or the scientists) are not receiving a
salary from IPCC? Ask any Project Mangement Consultant; in his/her
judgement can a organisation the size of IPCC be effectively run
with a volunteer leader? IPCC is a first-time experiment; with hind-
sight it could have been better structured.
I know a wave of ridicule might be on its way: Pachauri has lined his
pocket 10 times a top executive salary by other means. Well,
then we have to investigate that also, according to proper procedure.
At this level, we cannot assume that the executives will not have
their private economy well-buffered or that they should give up their
businesses (unless there is conflict of interest). If that is the criteria,
the leaders would have to be retired billionaires only.
DirkH (15:09:08) :
blackswhitewash, are you identical to climategatestuff or what’s going on here? Please don’t do that.
Sorry, but it looks like you won’t be getting a reply anytime soon.
Gee, I wonder if someone just lost a good-paying job… 😉
mikael pihlström (01:09:52) :
Where is the conflict here? I said models are part of science. You
describe that part. I agree on the methodological description, but not
on the conclusion concerning IPCC models.
You will have to admit, that in the sceptic movement it is becoming
commonplace, to dogmatically look for the word ‘model’ and then
declare the science invalid.
Mikael: I’m only on my third cup of coffee this morning, so if I’m not at my charming best yet… there may be no conflict, but blunt statements about science with no nuance are becoming typical of warmest propaganda. Computers and models are part of science in exactly the same way as white lab coats, clipboards, microscopes and test tubes and pregnancy testing kits. They are tools, nothing more.
I do disagree that skeptics automatically reject “model”…. far too often, from people who should know better, and probably do, the word “model” is embedded in a statement that includes “proves” or “worse than we thought”. The output of models is NOT evidence. The output of models is not science. People who cite the output of models as evidence of the urgency to fundamentally transform our economies and social systems are either fools or charlatans. They are not scientists.
Paul Nevins (06:01:01):
You assert;
“The peer reviewers obviously didn’t do their job.”
Not true! We did. But nobody took any notice.
Please see the discussion in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/the-new-math-ipcc-version/
Especially the pertient discusion of IPCC practics towards the end of that thread.
Richard
@DirkH, addendum to kadaka (07:12:27):
The “climategatestuff” link (climategatestuff.wordpress.com) goes straight to blackwhitewash.com. Same site, two different links here going to it, attached to two different aliases. Draw your own conclusions.
Whether IPCC “requires” peer-reviewed lit or not, RC and other blogs and pro-AGW debaters use the claim that anything not peer-reviewed (and in Science or Nature no less) as a debating tactic to disparage news they do not like. likewise, IPCC touts its work as peer-reviewed.