If climate research is like other research, half of the IPCC’s 6,000 academic citations are dubious.
Reporting on peer review, The Economist misses the elephant in the room – and advocates unjust hiring practices.
Another idea, supposedly confirmed by science, turns out to have little scientific foundation.
Peer-reviewed studies, published six months apart, produce wildly different estimates.
Some inhabitants of the Ivory Tower are using peer review – a process that helps scholarly journals decide what to print – as a shield to hide behind. Delegitimizing public input about publicly-funded science is arrogant and counterproductive.
A report I wrote for the Global Warming Policy Foundation was released today. It explains that peer-reviewed research is as likely to be wrong as right. Basing public policy on findings that haven’t yet been reproduced is nuts.
Academics insist that peer-reviewed research is sound and that everything else is inferior. But scholarly journals are actually littered with muck.
As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.
A new essay in the peer-reviewed literature searches for the secret formula by which to manipulate public opinion.
Canadian greens say lake-destroying research is all about science – but how do we know for sure?
Don’t believe everything you read – especially about the supposed link between global warming and natural disasters.
The BBC African temperature exaggeration is worse that we thought. It also has an IPCC connection.
Andrew Weaver: climate modeler, Green Party deputy leader, Greenpeace promoter.
The IPCC’s response to the leak of three data sticks is typical of that organization. It expects us to accept its version of reality at face value. Its statement provides no opportunity for the public to draw its own conclusions.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has systematically misled us regarding the quality and kind of material his organization consults.
There’s a link between hurricane expert Chris Landsea, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. That link is James J. McCarthy.
An opinion piece in Scientific America alleges that, over the long term, a great deal of scientific research turns out not to be true. Independent replication of research findings is apparently far less common than we think.
Climate activists have long argued that scientific research that has been peer-reviewed is reliable, trustworthy & true.
Last year a committee investigating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told it to pull up its socks and follow its own rules. This week, the IPCC decided to jettison an important rule instead.
Written by a senior Australian scientist, The Climate Caper explores some of the reasons why official IPCC science has become so pervasive. For one thing, it’s affiliated with huge government agencies employing large numbers of civil servant scientists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has taken the time to write down some rules of the road. But it has never hired any traffic cops.
A year ago a group of volunteers from 12 countries struck a blow for truth-in-advertising. Our audit revealed that 1 in 3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report references are to non-peer-reviewed literature. For years we’ve been told the climate bible relies exclusively on peer-reviewed research.
President Obama’s science advisor says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change bases its conclusions on source material that has been vetted in excruciating detail. According to IPCC insiders, this is bunk.
A recently-released collection of candid insider comments confirms many of our worst fears about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
IPCC insiders say non-peer-reviewed literature is essential and unavoidable when they write one of the world’s most important reports. Yet chairman Pachauri has, for years, insisted only peer-reviewed material gets used. Why haven’t scientific organizations set the record straight?
The InterAcademy Council has been promising since August to release documents associated with an investigation of the IPCC’s policies and procedures. There’s still no sign of them.
Koko Warner is a UN employee whose research has been funded and brazenly promoted by the UN in order to advance the UN’s climate change agenda. Now she is a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Close examination of the climate bible leaves one dumbfounded. Almost nothing we’ve been told about it seems remotely true. Almost nothing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has said – or continues to say – about that document seems connected to reality.
When the IPCC flouts its own rules outrageously – yet insists it has followed them religiously – its credibility evaporates.
Ten months after the official cutoff date, and well after the expert reviewers were out of the picture, climate bible authors inserted references to the Stern Review into 12 different chapters.
The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly declared that the climate bible relies solely on peer-reviewed source material. This claim is false. Rajendra Pachauri should resign.
The British government says 99% of the sources on which the climate bible bases its arguments should be peer-reviewed. But only 70% are.
The chairman of the IPCC has said that non-peer-reviewed research is so undeserving of the IPCC’s attention it should be thrown “into the dustbin.” Yet on one page of the climate bible, only 17% of the text is backed-up by peer-reviewed research.
The climate bible is the ultimate weapon in the global warming debate. Skeptics are told the experts have spoken and that carbon dioxide is the Great Satan.
Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the latest version of the climate bible – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed. 21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning report had so few peer-reviewed references they earned an F on our report card.
A poll was held prior to the release of our citizen audit findings. That project tallied up the number of climate bible references which involve peer-reviewed sources. (The public has long been told all references are to such material, yet we discovered 1/3 are not.)
Economist Richard Tol has written a series of blog posts regarding, among other concerns, the IPCC’s apparent use of non-peer-reviewed literature to neutralize peer-reviewed research findings.
In this blog post, I invited people to help me examine the references relied upon by the climate bible. Five weeks later, we delivered a report card in which 21 of 44 chapters of the climate bible received an ‘F’.
The chairman of the IPCC has repeatedly told the world the climate bible relies solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature. He is wrong.
Despite vigorous protests from its own expert reviewers, 42% of the documents cited in one chapter of the climate bible are grey literature rather than peer-reviewed.
If the climate bible includes significant mistakes, if it uses newspaper & magazine articles to make its case, if it relies on literature generated by activist organizations – then it is rather a different animal from the uber-respectable paragon of virtue so many journalists have described. Bamboozled by the PR machine that is the IPCC, they’ve passed along bad information to the public.