IPCC’s “Scientific” Assessment Reports
Donna Laframboise’s (love that name!) website: http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/ has just announced she’ll be releasing the results of the Citizens’ Audit of all 18, 531 references of the IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The audit was done by 40+ people from 12 countries. The target of the audit was to determine just how scientific is the literature that underpins the famous UN report, much ballyhooed by policymakers and activists. What percentage of the references was peer-reviewed literature, and what percentage was not?
Having taken part in the audit and examining the references of several chapters, I’ve been able to get a vague idea of what the results could be, but will not go into that. It’s Donna’s project. In an earlier post, Donna mentions how a PhD student had collected data on the IPCC 2001 TAR. His findings are reported in a guest post at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog a few weeks ago and look like this:
Journal references in the IPCC report (TAR) overall: 62%
Working Group 1: 84%
Working Group 2: 59%
Working Group 3: 36%
To me it looks like the 2001 TAR (the one with the famously flawed, prominently featured hockey stick) was a science review report with a lot activism spun in. Let’s see if the 2007 AR4 was any better.IPCC