Apr 14

Well, the UN IPPC’s report card is out for its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), and a citizen audit has given it 21 grades of F:

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 Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.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.

Meantime, more than two months after this blog reported it, Real Climate is still laughably touting the IPCC reports on their page of global warming resources:

“You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves”

6 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


One Response to “UN IPPC report flunks citizen audit, nevertheless, Real Climate still touting it: ‘You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves’”

  1. Todd says:

    Notice that LaFramboise is careful to mention that the “chairman” said the IPCC report was entirely peer-reviewed. He was wrong. The IPCC procedures clearly spell out the fact that non peer-reviewed literature is allowed: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf (see Annex 2).

    Instead of getting her facts straight, LaFramboise wasted time auditing the IPCC report based on an incorrect statement from Pachauri. Her report is useless.


preload preload preload