By the way, the evidence is growing that much of much of the IPCC report did not come from real peer-reviewed work, but from advocacy pieces by groups such as the WWF (which seems to practically be running the IPCC from the number of citations).
Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.
Anthony has a specific list of citations culled by Donna Laframboise from the IPCC reports, but I am sure the list will grow as folks poke and prod the report again. These two citations in the IPCC were particularly laugh-inducing:
* Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
* Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76
My sense that if we really trace the sources, we will find that most of the IPCC report rests on the work of 10-20 guys.
| — |
More “Settled Science” | Climate Skeptic What if in the end, AGW (aka Anthropogenic Global Warming) turns out to be as real as the geocentric theory? The “science” to date is looking less and less reliable and subject to the many foibles of human-kind. Again, my point is that we have to be careful to believe what are we being told (see Iraq War) and caution in arguments is often a good thing. We are wrong way more then we are right. It’s good to remember that. The climate might be warming on a geologic scale, but shoddy work, fake science and biased reports won’t help us figure that out. |
