http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/1...n-21-chapters/
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audi...eport-card.php

14 04 2010

While Oxburgh writes a 5 page book report that most college professors would likely reject due yo
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.

She writes:

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the report - finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed.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?

On Apr 14, 11:15*am, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/1...eport-card.php

14 04 2010

While Oxburgh writes a 5 page book report that most college professors would likely reject due yo
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.

She writes:

* 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?

This is just indication of the moral corruption of AGW and the
academic community and science organizations which always keep their
eye on what is actually important in modern science. Keeping the
funding going from the reluctant politicians, administrators and
fundies.

Money talks. Actual science walks.

In order for ANY study to be funded, or for ANY article to be
published, they must kiss the greenie weenie ass in their propasal or
abstract. Otherwise, funding does not occur.

Therefore, articles which use unsupported statements, conclusions and
references are allowed, as long as they state false tenents of AGW as
though they were fact.

The IPCC will eventually be shown to be 100% invalid, when actual
reckoning is done on their most basic precepts, which the weenies of
theoretical physics now allow.

KD