SOS Forests

The EPA, the IPCC, and Junk Science

Last December the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a CO2 “endangerment finding”, formally declaring that CO2 poses a threat to human health and welfare, a designation that sets the federal government on the path toward regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, factories, automobiles and other major and minor sources [here].

The EPA relied on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR4 2007 report rather than making any independent assessment:

Joined at the hip: The EPA Endangerment Finding uses the IPCC’s questionable science

by Thomas Fuller, Examiner.com, February 25 [here]

The Environmental Protection Agency made no bones about where it shopped for its science, proudly proclaiming that the IPCC had done such a good job that they did not need to do their (mandatory) independent assessment of the risks posed to U.S. citizens from greenhouse gases, which they now propose to regulate. Now, however, they are not so proud of the IPCC… although their Endangerment Finding relies heavily on the IPCC and uses some of the IPCC’s more questionable reporting. …

So, just how independent is the IPCC’s findings? Not very-the Technical Support Document averages almost two references to the IPCC on every page, and both the Endangerment Finding and the Technical Support Document contain direct reference to IPCC findings that have been revealed to be suspect, due to inadequate sourcing or plain error. …

Number of times the IPCC is mentioned in the Endangerment Finding itself: 49 (in a 52 page document) …

Number of times the IPCC is mentioned in the Technical Support Document to the Endangerment Finding: 396 (in a 210 page document) …

Now it has been revealed that the IPCC AR4 report is itself based on “grey literature” such as press releases, newspaper articles, and advocacy rants published by environmental groups. The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, repeatedly claimed the report was based on on “peer-reviewed” science, but a citizen audit found that over 30 percent of the citations were not peer-reviewed.

Spear-headed by Canadian journalist and blogger Donna Laframboise, the citizen audit found that 21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references (less than 60 percent) that they merit a grade of “F”.

Findings of the Citizen Audit of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report [here]

April 14, 2010

Report text by Donna Laframboise, Audit conducted by 43 citizen auditors from 12 countries.

Citizen Audit Main Findings

* 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

BACKGROUND AND INTRO

United Nations countries belong to an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which publishes a report every six years. Often referred to as the “climate bible” the latest one was released in 2007 and is relied on by governments around the world. Billions of dollars are spent on national and international policies based on its findings. Judges consult it when trying cases. Scholars and journalists cite it thousands of times a year.

The IPCC report contains 44 chapters and is nearly 3,000 pages long. Written by people organized into three teams - Working Group 1, 2 and 3 - it consists of three smaller reports bundled into one.

PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE CLAIM

The chairman of the IPCC has declared repeatedly that the report is based solely on peer-reviewed literature. (This means research papers that have been submitted to an academic journal, scrutinized by anonymous referees, and frequently altered in order to qualify for publication. Although the peer-review process does not guarantee accuracy, the fact that research findings have undergone this process promotes a feeling of confidence.)

This Citizen Audit focused its attention on the peer-reviewed literature claim. 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.

In elementary schools in the United States, students are assigned grades ranging from an A to an F, based on the mark they’ve achieved out of 100 (see Wikipedia’s table here). Most parents would be alarmed if their child brought home a report card similar to the one received by the IPCC.

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.

WHY THESE FINDINGS MATTER

Governments around the world need to base their policies on impeccable research - not a report that relies on 5,587 instances of grey literature to make its case. If individuals with an agenda had wished to manipulate this report, they were afforded thousands of opportunities to do so.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has repeatedly trumpeted his organization’s full reliance on peer-reviewed literature. But the report falls well short of that standard. If the IPCC has misled the public about a matter this straightforward surely its ability to accurately describe more complex topics is called into question.

Twenty-six lawsuits and legal petitions have been filed against the EPA and their CO2 endangerment finding [here]. The EPA has responded by saying that the “science is settled”.

Perhaps it is in their minds, but the reality is that press releases, newspaper articles, and advocacy rants from enviro groups are junk science, not the real thing. The EPA has put politics ahead of good science and as a result polluted their findings and compromised their integrity.

The American public should not be victimized by unfounded Draconian punishments and regulations promulgated by a politicized bureaucracy acting without statutory authority from Congress.

The global warming scare is a false one. The globe is not warming. Climates are not changing. There is no relationship between CO2 and climate. The entire “scientific” argument is not scientific at all.

It is no exaggeration to call the global warming scandal the Greatest Hoax in History. Something like $100 billion has been spent in the attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. The perpetrators are “carbon traders”, and their willing accomplices in the UN and the EPA, who have set up Enron-style scams to fleece the world of $trillions.

The world economy is in shambles. Far too much dirty dealing has gone on, so much so that entire nations are collapsing under astronomical debt. Where has all that money gone? Into the pockets of a few wealthy scam artists. The economic results are catastrophic.

Nothing the EPA does will affect global temperatures one scintilla of a degree, but they can stick another knife into the backs of the public. Their justifications for doing so are gossamer thin.

The public needs to wake up immediately and put an end to this madness. It is time to flush our government of scam artists.