IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri defending the reliability of the IPCC report in early 2008:
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.Pachauri on the same subject in late 2009:
IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.The reality --
A "citizen audit" by NoConsensus.org examined all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report. Their findings released last week said:
A team of 43 volunteers from 12 countries examined the list of references at the end of each chapter. We sorted these references into two groups -- articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals and other references. (Non-peer-reviewed material is often called "grey literature".) Then we calculated the percentage of references that do, indeed, appear to be peer-reviewed. . .The conclusion --
21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references that the IPCC received an F. The IPCC relied on peer-reviewed literature less than 60 percent of the time in these chapters.
5,587 references in the IPCC report were not peer-reviewed. Among these documents are press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, MA and PhD theses, working papers, and advocacy literature published by environmental groups.
The IPCC report isn't as advertised--even Senator Boxer now eschews it. It's at least 40 percent advocacy, not science. The only science that's settled is that the science isn't settled.
(via Planet Gore)