IPCC_PeerReview

A Sustainable Oregon	Is Accomplished by
Equal opportunity for all Oregonians	Putting average citizens first in all government actions
Maximize Oregonian's standard of living	Government encourages, rather than inhibits competition
Maximum access to plentiful jobs	Government that welcomes all non polluting industries
Fast and low cost transportation that is self financing	Ending government discrimination against cars.
Maximum opportunity for jobs creation	Limit regulations to those for safety and fraud prevention
Government based on sound principles and science	Outreach to ordinary people not special interests

Home Central England PastBeliefs Solar CO2 Sources IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview Meteorologist Survey Ask Questions Climate Models Local Food Fraud Of Century? Selected Emails JonesInterview HistoryOFAlarmism IPCC&CLouds Threats Wegman Ocean Heat Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Its OK to Lie! CO2 Quiz BigMoneyScaring 450 realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution IPCC Scientists DataQuality Data Adjustments Greenhouse Gas CO2_sources CO2 & Climate CO2-Not Guilty Vostok Graph Is Science Settled? The Sun Ocean Level Sea Level OceanHeat Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Temperature History Inconvenient Accuracy Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil No Limits Videos Printables Links Briffa et al (1998) data

Email WebMaster

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* 5,587 are not peer-reviewed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

Read the Whole Report Here

One IPCC participant:

I was one of hundreds of people asked to respond to a set of inquiry questions. The questions, and my replies, are available on my Web page (rossmckitrick.weebly.com). Here is a summary of some of my input.

IPCC policies, such as the requirement for an “objective, open and transparent” review process, sound impressive, but my experience is that the written policies are not always followed, and there do not appear to be any consequences when they are breached.

For example, one rule states: “Review Editors will need to ensure that where significant differences of opinion on scientific issues remain, such differences are described in an annex to the Report.” Yet no such annexes have been produced. I was involved in numerous areas where there were significant differences of opinion on scientific issues, such as flaws in surface temperature data, improper estimation of trend uncertainties and methodological flaws in paleoclimate research. None of these differences were resolved during the review process, yet no annexes were ever published, creating a false impression of consensus.

After the publication of the AR4 I found that important text had been altered or deleted after the close of the review process, and the Lead Authors of Chapter 3 had fabricated evidence (on Page 244 of the Working Group I Report), by claiming that statistical evidence in two published, peer-reviewed articles on surface data contamination was statistically insignificant, when the articles show no such thing. The paragraph was inserted after the close of peer review and was never subject to external scrutiny. That Lead Authors are able to insert evidence and rewrite the text after the close of review makes a mockery of the idea that the IPCC reports are peer reviewed, and undermines the claim that they contain the consensus of experts.

Selection of Working Group Chairs and Lead Authors appears to be under the control of a small circle of people committed to a predetermined view on global warming. In combination with the fact that the review process is toothless, this guarantees that the report contents are predictable given the names of the Lead Authors. Indeed there is not much point even publishing the report anymore: Once the list of Lead Authors is known, we can all guess what the conclusions will be. I am sure that there are many areas in the IPCC report where the conclusions will be sound. But in the areas where I have detailed knowledge and experience, this has not been the case.