Peering at IPCC's Peer-Review

  The IPCC and the Peer-review Process.

The IPCC promoted the falsehood that all their supporting documentation was peer-reviewed. IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri, in 2007 insisted that the quality of the science "is absolutely first rate. You know there may be someone who knows a lot about glaciers. We will get him to write something on glaciers and send it to the writing team. "
http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/05inter.htm
and then goes on to mention peer-reviewed - "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature."

Again in 2008 he insisted that the IPCC process was based on peer-reviewed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10514468&pnum=0

"People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions," he said."Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I'm not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed."

Roger Pielke Jr explains that movement of the IPCC away from peer-review on his blog:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/peer-review-in-ipcc.html

Review by Donna Laframboise
Yet that may be the IPCC on a good day. Chapter 5, from Working Group 3's report - which I randomly chose to examine next - is far worse. Only 61 of the 260 references relied on in that chapter have their feet firmly planted in peer-reviewed literature – an abysmal 24 percent. Put another way, three-quarters of the material cited there is grey literature. In a chapter devoted to something as tangible as the transportation sector. [CORRECTION: 64 references were peer-reviewed, bringing the overall percentage to 25 percent. Please accept my apologies.]
Research by No Frakking Consensus
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/03/great-peer-review-fairy-tale.html

It is surprising to find that there are ill-informed people who still believe that the IPCC relies entirely on Peer-reviewed papers.


Comments