Donna Laframboise is perhaps travelling at the moment, so hasn't responded to my requests to comment.
In the meanwhile, I've decided to read what she wrote, so I bought her book (available here for $5), and have spent five minutes checking for myself her methodology.
Here is what her book says (below). After you read this, please check the link I'll provide, below.
It had now become clear to me that an audit of all 44 chapters of the Climate Bible needed to be undertaken. The list of references appearing at the end of each one had to be examined. It was important to know just how many were actually peer-reviewed. But since some chapters list 400 or more references, and a few list 800 or more, the job was too large for one person. I needed help.
The Internet is a powerful and amazing invention. On March 8th, 2010 I wrote a blog post asking for assistance. The rules were simple. The references appearing at the end of each IPCC chapter would be examined by three people, working independently. They'd identify the non-peer-reviewed entries, tally them up, and calculate the percentages.
In the event that their findings differed slightly (the IPCC doesn't always include complete information, and it's difficult to tell whether some journals are peer-reviewed or not), the result most favorable to the IPCC would be used. Where there was uncertainty, the IPCC would receive the benefit-of-the-doubt. This wasn't about nitpicking. What mattered was the big picture.
Within hours, I began receiving offers of assistance from people around the world. A surgeon from Kentucky. A night-shift worker from Australia. A software whiz from Vancouver. A retired engineer from Germany. Soon, more than 40 individuals from 12 countries had been in touch and a four-week dash to the finish line had begun.
Ordinary people volunteered many hours of their personal time to this project, which I called the Citizen Audit. In a handful of cases, fearing negative repercussions in their workplace or communities, they asked not to be publicly identified. One man told me that his neighbors might slash his tires or set fire to his house.
Think about that. What kind of moment in history do we inhabit when people feel that helping to fact-check a UN document places them at risk? In an era in which freedom of thought, religion, and speech are supposed to be valued why should counting up references in the Climate Bible be the slightest bit controversial?
After the results were all in, a few more days were required to do the math, write a brief report, and compile some tables. Five weeks later, on April 14th, we made our results public. Of the 18,531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 – a full 30% – to be non peer-reviewed. The peer review score was so low in 21 out of 44 instances, the chapter would have received an F on an elementary school report card (59% or less).While Chairman Pachauri had declared an Indian government discussion paper fit only for the dustbin, we found that the Climate Bible cites dozens of discussion papers. In one case, the document relied on by the IPCC was clearly labeled as 'version one' of a draft.I wish I could say the release of our findings triggered a media frenzy, that journalists took notice and that this UN body was asked some tough questions. Such as:
- If the IPCC can't be trusted to describe it's own report accurately why should we believe anything else it says?
- How can the head of the IPCC be so misinformed?
- Does chairman Pachauri intend to set the record straight with those North Carolina legislators?To my knowledge only one news outlet contacted the IPCC. A spokeswoman acknowledged the IPCC was aware of the Citizen Audit findings, but declined to comment.Six days after we released our results, an article authored by Pachauri appeared in a Yale University online publication. It claimed the 2007 edition of the Climate Bible "cited approximately 18,000 peer- reviewed publications." We found less than 13,000.It further said that "a limited amount of gray (or non-peer-reviewed) literature" had been cited "in cases where peer-reviewed literature was unavailable." Actually, this occurred 5,587 times. [FOOTNOTE 11-1]
John (Quiggin), the detailed underlying data is available here.
There is MASSIVE amounts of detailed data linked above. Every single chapter has THREE different analyses.
You can now go back to your sample of 30 citations and confirm whether the independent reviewers were lying.
And more importantly, as far as I'm concerned, can you please PROVE to me that Donna was lying?
You do realise, I hope, that you are a full professor, and also hold an important public office. It is imperative that your opinions have the grativas expected of such a senior person. I'm STILL willing to believe you, but you now need to REALLY prove that Donna is a liar. The ball's in your court.
The complete discussion
- I'm sorry Australia has such a disappointing person on its Climate Change Authority
- Strip Al Gore and IPCC of their Nobel Prize and give it to these people
- If Kevin Rudd continues to abuse those who ask questions, then Australia should bid goodbye to science
- It is not Donna Laframboise but Rajendra Pachauri who is a HUGE liar
- Now John Quiggin says that the world's top scientists are stupid! This is getting absurd.
- John Quiggin, IPCC's peer review process is riddled with holes. I now expect a detailed correction on your blog.
- John, thanks for withdrawing your allegation against Donna's integrity. Here's other stuff you and I should know.
- The total mess that is IPCC. This is very serious stuff. Please do read.
- John (Quiggin), Donna's methodology is totally transparent. Please PROVE she is a liar.
- Now John Quiggin says that Donna Laframboise is lying. I'll ask her about it.
- Second point for John Quiggin: to what extent does IPCC use peer reviewed literature?
- Response to John Quiggin re: longevity of "man-made" CO2 in the atmosphere
- Very important new study that rebuts IPCC generated panic
- Inviting input from readers re: climate change facts, to conduct a debate with John Quiggin
- John Quiggin, I suggest you review your estimate of the impact of Australian CO2 reductions
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email: