Donna Laframboise did it again. She and 40 others, scrutinized the report that tell the world that we, Humans, are responsible for all the calamities that we see around us and it is caused by CO2 and we should stop breathing (Yes we breath out CO2!).
Here some excerpt:
Of the 44 chapters in the IPCC report: | |
| 21 received an F | - 59% or fewer references are peer-reviewed |
| 4 received a D | - 60-69% of references are peer-reviewed |
| 6 received a C | - 70-79% of references are peer-reviewed |
| 5 received a B | - 80-89% of references are peer-reviewed |
| 8 received an A | - 90-100% of references are peer-reviewed |
UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 "F"s on Report Card
- all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
- 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
- IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
- each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
- 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
- 43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project
- full report card here
- detailed results here
UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 "F"s on Report Card
for release 14 April 2010
TORONTO -- 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 Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,500 sources cited in the report – finding 5,600 to be not peer-reviewed.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.
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.
Messages
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire