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 Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report – finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.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.
The Bible isn’t peer reviewed either. Yet hundreds of millions believe it.
Abe the Bible serves a purpose. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
Problem is, one of the ‘A’s is for Chapter 10 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10.html
“Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis”
THAT’s what’s going to be held up as the Gold Standard…
John Cross WILL be pleased!
Right off the hop, anyone smarter than a 5th grader saw CO2 AGW as a hoax.
As any forensic accountant will declare/prove creative book-keeping never survives a serious audit.
In my own experience legions of truck drivers have “double logged” and other creative things but these always fail a DOT audit.
There are always loose ends and when these are pulled the whole mess unravels.
My dad said: “a liar needs a damn good head piece. First he has to remember the truth, then the lie…the lie to cover up that lie and so on and sooner or later the memory fails.”
The moral is truth is usually successful and requires very little effort.
Abe:
Could you articulate any tenets outlined in the New Testament that have done harm to humanity?
AGW proponents, on the other hand …
Abe; the Old and New Testaments are the antithesis of Science. Having said that, they are both constantly being analyzed, dissected, and investigated by all manner of scientists and academics. Peer reviewed to death…
How many man-hours have been devoted to the Dead Sea Scrolls?
“Abe the Bible serves a purpose. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.”
No … that would be a set of verbal instructions by an airline employee holding a seat belt buckle and a colorful brochure.
You don’t really get to go anywhere without your body. You should know that by now.
“Could you articulate any tenets outlined in the New Testament that have done harm to humanity?”
Why? I didn’t say the bible harmed anyone. I have noted that it appears to make some people crazy … they babble on about it all day and have no fiends at all, but that’s their business I suppose.
The real point is whether any climate change is part of a natual cycle of a reaction to mankind. The science is not settled as some would want you to believe. To question is science’s mandate. If the “science” was settled the earth would still be the center of the universe and it would be impossible for man to fly.
An “F”. So what does this mean? Summer School? Correspondence course?
What! Advancement to the next level!
Not sure what this proves beyond the narrow point that not every last reference in the IPCC reports is directly from a peer-reviewed source.
Skimming the NoConsensus findings, the first thing one notices is that many (most?) of the sources flagged as “non-peer-reviewed” are either (a) academic texts, the contents of which almost certainly draw upon and cite primary peer-reviewed sources and (b) technical reports from credible third parties (e.g., the International Energy Agency, the US EPA, OECD, etc.) that either produce their own proprietary primary data or cite primary sources as appropriate.
(For what it’s worth, during my cursory skim, I found a number of sources that the NoConsensus folks rightly note should not have been included in the IPCC reports, and at least one source (Energy Journal) that is in fact peer-reviewed but was not flagged as such.)
If their goal was to “discredit” the IPCC report, what they should have done is track down each reference back to the original primary source (since an IPCC “finding” could still be scientifically valid, if rather sloppily referenced, if it ‘merely’ cited a grey literature report that itself drew and appropriately referenced that finding from a peer-reviewed source) and then determine whether that original source backs up the claim made in the report. After all, while one shouldn’t cite, say, newspaper articles to support a technical argument, it would be perfectly valid to do so if the point being made was that such-and-such was being discussed in the news.
But I suspect that if they actually did all that, most of the “failing” chapters would go from F’s to A’s, B’s, and C’s.
DaninVan:
There are many examples of scientists who are religious and religious figures who are scientists.
All you have to do is research some of the facts.
Here’s a start, in the interest of enlightening what appears to be your closed mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
Davenport says “But I suspect that if they actually did all that, most of the “failing” chapters would go from F’s to A’s, B’s, and C’s.”
Well that opinion (not having been “peer-reviewed”) is worth nothing. And actually, “peer-review” itself is an enormous fraud. It is being held up as the “ultimate truth” but the reality is that in climate “science” it is nothing more than gatekeeping as ClimateGate so ruthlessly exposed.
“There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a ‘veiled reality’ that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments.”
The above quote is from French physicist and philosopher of science Bernard d’Espagnat who worked with Nobel laureates Louis de Broglie, Enrico Fermi and Niels Bohr. De Broglie was his thesis advisor; he served as a research assistant to Fermi; and he worked at CERN when it was still in Copenhagen under the direction of Bohr. He also served as a visiting professor at the University of Texas, Austin, at the invitation of the legendary physicist John Wheeler.
The thrust of d’Espagnat’s work was on experimental tests of Bell’s theorem which states that either quantum mechanics is a complete description of the world or that if there is some reality beneath quantum mechanics, it must be nonlocal – that is, things can influence one another instantaneously regardless of how much space stretches between them, violating Einstein’s insistence that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
D’Espagnat was one of the brave ones unafraid to tackle the thorny and profound philosophical questions posed by quantum physics. Unlike classical physics, d’Espagnat says, quantum mechanics cannot describe the world as it really is, it can merely make predictions for the outcomes of our observations.
Well said Davenport. The arguement being made here is that not every source was peer-reviewed – however 70% of the sources were found in peer-reviewed journals. It really isn’t surprising that chapters talking about current climate conditions, dollars spent to help communities rebuild after climatically driven disasters, and impacts on daily life may also cite newspaper articles and government reports because that is where that data is found.
Additionally, in academia, citing government reports is perfectly acceptable because it is often the source of the most up to date, credible data. In addition, as Davenport suggests, these government reports also draw upon peer-reviewed literature (which makes them founded on science and not opinion) and places like USGS, USEPA, and NOAA collect some of the most quality controlled, comprehensive, longterm data.
So, thank you for the pretend distraction. Thank you for showing us how varied the sources of this report are. It is nice to know that government reports, cutting edge graduate student work (theses that will likely be published in peer-reviewed journals shortly after graduation), current reports on the ground (newspaper articles), AND peer reviewed scientific literature all point to the same conclusion.
Just think of it as the iron pyrite standard — that is a type of gold standard . . . if you consider fool’s gold to be gold, that is.
Corruption is the new religion Phil Jones,Al Gore and Michael Mann are the disciples.Did anyone notice Newt Gingrich has jumped on Nancy Pelosis bandwagon for climatechange fascism.Everyone should take a hard look.Republicans and Democrats are coming together against a growing majority who question their integrity.
Donna Laframboise is superb. Everything I read with her input is such a breath of fresh air.
There was a new grading system explained on a radio program. It was stated they ran out of letters before they got to F. A D- is 39%.
Abe ,it wasn’t an argument. What you believe means nothing to me. What I believe means nothing to you. It was intended to be light hearted.
Like anything else, it has clearly been demonstrated that there must be some integrity behind scientific research.
Could just be me but the lack of moral compass has led to this fraud of political science.
Another example of lack of moral compass would be the financial meltdown in the US. What type of integrity did those failed human beings display?
Both examples have one thing in common … the temptation of great personal wealth has driven their actions.
Lead us not into temptation … I’d guess that warning would be unimportant to those who dismiss something that gives humans a moral compass.
When I read this at WUWT yesterday, it came across as a weak argument, more of a PR stunt.
The IPCC has provided ample targets to attack – the accuracy of the monitoring stations, urban heat island effects, handling of raw data, computer modeling, manipulation of data, crappy statistics, superficial treatment of alternative theories etc.
IMO, the realists and skeptics will be more successful if they stay focused on the parts of the ‘science’ that conflict with real world data and observations, cost-benefit of proposed solutions, and exposing the AGW profiteers and hypocrites.
Maybe they should revoke the IPCC Nobel Peace Prize . . . after all they claimed the report was 100% based on peer reviewed science . . 100%.
The peer review argument was the foundation of the argument to believe the IPCC report’s conclusions.
How anyone can still take the IPCC and any of its reports or conclusions seriously is beyond belief.
Kudos to Canadian Steve McIntyre.
“Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.”
Will PM Harper invite Steve to the House of Commons for an official visit?
If you have a contact(s) at the PMO, please forward this.
After all, this is a hockey stick saga.
…-
“‘Hockey stick’ graph was exaggerated – McIntyre gets props”
“From the Telegraph:
The ‘hockey stick’ that became emblematic of the threat posed by climate change exaggerated the rise in temperature because it was created using ‘inappropriate’ methods, according to the head of the Royal Statistical Society.”
“Prof Hand praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/hockey-stick-graph-was-exaggerated-mcintyre-gets-props/
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/04/15/private-eye-not-so-private-anymore/#comment-79690
I wrote a thesis not too long ago. If I included that much unreferenced crap-heck, if I even included that many reviews instead of primary literature-it would not get a good grade and would probably not pass.
much scarier than AGW and the MSM hasnt even jumped on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_run
of course CBCpravda has Mr. and Mrs. Jaffer to worry about. fortunately they are like a horse with a twitch. if they are occupied with the twitch , important stuff gets behind them
So…
Global warming is a fact, therefore all Christians are dangerous idiots?
I took a logic class once and that sounds like one of the “Underline the fallacies” exam questions.
Davenport, that was a pretty lame remark that you made about suspecting the F’s would go to A’s, B’s, and C’s.
No Consensus got off their collective asses and actually tracked down the information. I suggest you do the same in trying to dismiss their findings.
No Consensus is not stating that the quality of the references are all bad. They are disputing the IPCC’s claim that their conclusions are all based entirely upon peer reviewed information. No Consensus has a link to 16 quotes from the IPCC saying how good their information is because it is all based on peer reviewed information.
You are welcome to refute them by examining the 5600 non-reviewed articles and showing that these are properly citing reviewed sources, and that NO NEW information was introduced in these non-reviewed references the “base documents” that you imply these are based upon. After all, the new information would not have been peer-reviewed.
If the IPCC claims that they only rely on peer reviewed information, they MUST have a database somewhere that links these references back to peer reviewed articles. Otherwise, one might think they were actually lying when they made those claims.
Maybe the IPCC’s definition of peer reviewed is that they read it and agreed with the political slant.
Haven’t heard from “raz” for awhile
Interesting website though.
When you click on her section “Global Warming Theory 101” you get this [with illustrations]
// We can’t predict next summer’s weather reliably.
But we claim to know – within a few degrees – how hot it will be 100 years from now. //
That’s it. Not sure if it’s peer-reviewed.
And that list of “citizen auditors” certainly wasn’t peer reviewed. [Unless Anonymous is a peer of Anonymous.]
In any case, Volume One, which is the Climate Science volume, gets 8 As & 3 Bs from Donna & her citizen auditors.
Looking at Chapter One, which gets the lowest mark B for 80% peer-reviewed references [210 of 264], we can see such NON-peer-reviewed references as —
[in the Historical Overview]
Karl Popper 1934
Isaac Newton 1675
Stephen Hawking 1988
etc
As the report says, [in what may be the first actual quote appearing in these parts] —
// The attributes of science briefly described here can be used in assessing competing assertions about climate change. Can the statement under consideration, in principle, be proven false? Has it been rigorously tested? Did it appear in the peer-reviewed literature? Did it build on the existing research record where appropriate? If the answer to any of these questions is no, thenless credence should be given to the assertion until it is tested and independently verified. The IPCC assesses the scientific
literature to create a report based on the best available science (Section 1.6). It must be acknowledged, however, that the IPCC also contributes to science by identifying the key uncertaintiesand by stimulating and coordinating targeted research to answer important climate change questions. //
The Bible states that killing is wrong. I can get behind that. Global warming lunatics state unsubstantiated things.
I’m going to stick with the Bible. It’s safer.
When the AGW crowd dismissed my theory on planetary alignment causes climate change I threw them under the bus.
RPT and Davenport, your guys got caught with their Billion Dollar grant collecting hands in the cookie jar. You do realize if AGWers persist the only available tactic to remain will be tar and feathers and a oneway ticket out of town.
,
AlGW reports: The Devil made me do it.
“We can actually smell sulphur in the air here now from the volcano cloud
Tim Farish, Oslo”
MSM is conflicted, as usual:
1. “Europe flights could be grounded for 48 hours by ash”.
2. “It is unclear when flights will be allowed to resume.”
3. “A spokesman for the UK’s National Air Traffic Service (Nats) said its airspace restriction was the worst in living memory, and that it was “very unlikely that the situation over England will improve in the foreseeable future”.”
…-
“Europe flights could be grounded for 48 hours by ash”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8623534.stm
Al’s GW shouts out: Hey youse!
“We’ve got to do something about flying.”
“It’s crunch time: if the authorities won’t make climate change policy work, we need to, openly and together.”
…-
“Plane stupid”
“bringing the aviation industry back down to earth!”
“Call out for public shut down of Glasgow airport on October 10
For several years now we’ve sat by and listened as MP after MSP pledged to do something about climate change. So far, they’ve achieved sod all, and time is running out. It’s crunch time: if the authorities won’t make climate change policy work, we need to, openly and together. But how, you ask? Well, we’re going to start by shutting down Glasgow airport on October 10.
We’ve formed a new coalition, Stop Expansion at Scottish Airports, and we’re calling on anyone who believes in a sustainable future to join us. There have been a number of public actions against climate change in England, but this is the first in Scotland.
We’ve got to do something about flying. The Air Transport White Paper and the Scottish Climate Change Bill go in opposite directions. One forecasts a massive increase in passengers and the other demands a 42% reduction in greenhouse gases. It’s the politics of the madhouse.”
http://www.planestupid.com/blogs/2010/04/1/we-will-shut-down-glasgow-airport
(H/T WUWT?)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/icelands-volcanic-ash-cloud-airports-closed-in-uk-europe/#more-18507
“No Consensus got off their collective asses and actually tracked down the information.”
That’s my point — they didn’t really track down any truly relevant information. All they did was go down the reports’ reference lists, highlight citations involving peer-reviewed journals, ASSUME that every other source was not based on peer-reviewed research, and, solely on the basis of that rather cursory examination, deem the IPCC reports to be “discredited.”
Sorry, but no, they haven’t discredited anything. So far, all they’ve done is shown that the IPCC reports didn’t follow the strictest scholarly standards in their referencing.
Here’s the bottom-line that both No Consensus and you seem to be missing: for the IPCC to claim that its reports’ findings are based on peer-reviewed research does NOT require that every last reference be a peer-reviewed source, as long as the information they drew from those non-peer-reviewed sources was itself drawn from peer-reviewed research.
If the No Consensus folks really wanted to discredit the reports, they should have tracked down those non-peer-reviewed sources to see whether those are based on solid scientific work. If they aren’t, then No Consensus could make the claim that the IPCC reports are scientifically non-credible. Unless/until they do that, their conclusion is premature.
“You are welcome to refute them by examining the 5600 non-reviewed articles and showing that these are properly citing reviewed sources…”
Actually, no — if No Consensus is going to make such serious allegations about the IPCC’s work, the FIRST-ORDER onus is on them to ensure that those allegations are air-tight. Pointing out that their basic argument is full of holes doesn’t then obligate me to fill those holes for them. There’s no point in refuting an argument that’s shoddy to begin with.
Here’s the bottom-line that both No Consensus and you seem to be missing: for the IPCC to claim that its reports’ findings are based on peer-reviewed research does NOT require that every last reference be a peer-reviewed source, as long as the information they drew from those non-peer-reviewed sources was itself drawn from peer-reviewed research.
The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035…It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.
timesonline.co.uk January 21, 2010
The IPCC 2007 report claimed that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods. Like its claims about the glaciers, this was also based on an unpublished report which had not been subject to scientific scrutiny — indeed several experts warned the IPCC not to rely on it…
reason.com 2010/01/27/
And here’s more
heartland.org – Written By: Donna Laframboise
Publication date: 01/23/2010
Publisher: NOconsensus.org
“There’s no point in refuting an argument that’s shoddy to begin with……..”
That would be true if we were dealing with actual arguments in a open context of scientific debate.
Since we are dealing with unwinding a propaganda campaign …. all bets are off.
Try to quit being obtuse.
A question for Davenport: would you agree that the scientific method does not have an onus of proof, but rather that any theory that is presented must be falsifiable? That is, if a theory (or group of theories) is presented, that if they are to be scientific they must not only make predictions of cause/effect, but must also say “If this, this, or this happens then my theory is wrong. Simple question, yes or no answer will suffice.
Davenport,
I’m slightly surprised by your reference to “technical reports from credible third parties.”
Before Climategate, one would have, or could have, made the assumption that the following would be “credible”: UN reports, college professors, scientists, the peer review process, etc. In other words, given the flaws and discrepancies in the IPCC reports, why shouldn’t ANY aspect of the report be questioned?
Also, I have a little knowledge about how the government works. Government employees and contractors, depite whatever stereotype one might hold, can definitely be creative when they want to tell a story a certain way. I’m not going to put down all government employees, but to assume that the agencies you mention are credible (why, because they are government agencies?) and that biases don’t enter into their work product is relatively naive.
So many people have tried to shut down any debate with the “Is it peer reviewed?” line that it was well worth the time spent. There were many other issues spotted as well — self citing, (“academic check kiting” is a term I have heard), circular citing, etc. There are lots of issues, but the first one to resolve is the “throw it in the dustbin” line. Now that’s done. Now we can move on to something important!
For those who want more — I say “Go for it!” start up a new project. You could also audit horrible things like the Ontario (Canada) “Climate Change” literature which is based on IPCC literature — and uses many of the same (non)mathematical techniques to arrive at suspect conclusions. The point is that it can be done.
Now we don’t have to accept “It isn’t peer reviewed.” Why? We now have agreement here at least that peer review is not necessary. So grab your crayons, sharpen them up, and draw a graph — then “Get Published” (non peer-reviewed of course!).
I think that this topic points out how the process was manipulated. As I recall it was stated many times that if 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-called 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.
Clearly people did “pick up newspapers”, clearly they did include magazine articles…
Did people attempt to track articles through books back to the original papers? Yes — but it is very time consuming, and there is no assurance that it is the same paper, same wording and same data without a close comparison. However, feel free to do your own audit. I don’t think any of the auditors will disparage any additional efforts.
That is exactly the point, WillR.
To this I would add … At the slightest hint of criticism or questioning of the climate bible, Pachauri brandishes “all/only/entirely/solely peer-reviewed” like a crucifix before vampires. And it is this repeated claim (picked up by others in the media and repeated ad nauseam) that the audit was specifically addressing.
Words have meaning, and since Pachauri repeatedly chooses to use “all”, “only” “entirely” and “solely” – all of which imply not 70%, not 80%, not even 99%, but 100% “peer-reviewed” – then either he has not read the report himself and verified this in the references, or he’s lying.
It’s as simple as that.
Pachauri gets an A for consistency, and an F either for due diligence or for truthfulness.
Considering Pachauri’s position in the climate game food-chain, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the “science” is valid: this audit has shown that there is no justifiable reason to place any credence in that with which he is associated.
Abe: “The Bible isn’t peer reviewed either.”
Oh I don’t know about that. Seems to me the Christians (peers) have been reviewing it and providing critical commentary for nearly a couple of millenium so far. Of course, almost nobody has ever claimed it was based on science.
The point is, that the IPCC is not following its own rules … it doesn’t matter what chapter or verse or song and dance … they simply are not following their own stated guidelines.
Exactly, Louise; I have no idea what ‘setyoufree’ was on about…
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013790.html#c490742
My point was that scientists DO peer review matters theological.
Biblical archaeology is a huge field.
Another specific example is the science brought to bear on the Shroud of Turin.
set you free at April 15, 2010 11:10 AM:
What on Earth are you on about?!
My comment had absolutely NOTHING to do with individual scientists’ beliefs.
I was pointing out the obvious error in Abe Froman’s statement, “The Bible isn’t peer reviewed either.”
The Bible isn’t a scientific document, yet it’s contents, and related material, are constantly being researched by scientists. The Shroud of Turin for example, Noah’s Ark, the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, Masada, Herod’s reign, the Wailing Wall and all matters archaeological concerning Jerusalem, come immediately to mind.
Not sure the Bible could be “peer reviewed” anyway if it’s the “word of God”. Who would review it, Odin? Thousands of pages of commentary for every verse, it’s been looked at let’s say. At any rate, the commenters put their names to the commentary, and the apocrypha were excluded very publicly.
Compare that with the peer review scandals. Wikipedia is more transparent, but I don’t bother explaining that out to profs anymore. They resist that idea. I think it has something to do with barriers to competition.