Oh, the Horror!
This from Fox News:
A group of 40 auditors — including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe — have released a shocking report card on the U.N.’s landmark climate-change research report.
And they gave 21 of the report’s 44 chapters a grade of “F.”
The IPCC has asserted that this report of theirs is 100% peer-reviewed rock-solid science and anyone doubting it is nothing more than an irrational Luddite and knuckle-dragging troglodyte. (Excuse me! I make very sure my knuckles don’t drag I’ll have you know; the static buildup on carpet would be devastating!) Alas, another claim shot down by an ugly gang of facts and data:
But wait! The details just get better:
- 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- 5,587 are not peer-reviewed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
Now as a demonstration of how this report forms the keystone of the current Globaloney Warming conspiracy to remold government policies world-wide, note this graphic from the IPCC about the report:
What is critical to note is how they try to impress the reader with massive numbers in numerous categories to imply an universal consensus regarding the content of this report. Can this many people from this many countries be wrong? In a word, YES! Scientific truth is not determined by majority vote. The majority thought Galileo was wrong. As Michael Crichton has so eloquently observed (emphases added):
…Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear:the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
(speech at California Institute of Technology, January 17, 2003)
Well, there’s some of Dennis Prager’s clarity for you!
And thus, this report is once again demonstrated to be nothing more than a piece of propaganda and not science.
This has been a public service announcement lovingly brought to you by The Interface. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.