IPCC 2007 AR4: Advocacy Hijacks Science

The IPCC has egg on its face. The 2007 AR4 is discredited.

Donna Laframboise has just released her findings of her comprehensive audit of the IPCC AR4 references. Recall how AGW proponents have trumpeted that the AR4 is based solely on peer-reviewed literature. See here for some notable quotes:

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/not-as-advertised.php

It turns out that the 2007 AR4 is not based solely on peer-reviewed literature after all. Rather it also cites numerous press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, student theses, newsletters, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups.

Here are the results of the IPCC AR4 audit:

http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

Facts and Figures IPCC 2007 AR4:

1. 18,531 references, 44 chapters, almost 3,000 pages.

2. 44 auditors checked its references

3. 21 chapters (48%) get an “F” (less than 60% peer-reviewed)

4. In total 5,587 references were not peer-reviewed (30%).

Having been one of the 44 auditors involved in Donna’s project, I was amazed at how unscientific some cited references were.

Conclusion: the 2007 AR4 is an advocacy report that uses cherry-picked science to support one view.

Explore posts in the same categories: IPCC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: