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 Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.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.
“You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves”
Possibly Related Posts:
- A video, a petition, The Donald: Momentum builds for revocation of Al Gore’s and the IPCC’s Nobel Peace Prize
- Laughable: RealClimate’s page of global warming resources claims: ‘You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves’
- President Obama, please follow India’s suit: Pull the US out of the IPCC to keep your pledge to ‘restore scientific integrity to government decision making’
- India environment minister’s parting shot as it pulls out of IPCC: ‘There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science.’
- Pachauri video: ‘I want to tell the skeptics…that I am in no mood to oblige them. I am going to remain chairman of the IPCC….’