Who's Concerned About the Climate Report?

It's a wonderful world, and technology makes it even more marvelous. On the evening of March 8th I called for volunteers to help audit the references cited in all 44 chapters of the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

By last night, roughly 48 hours later, 19 people whose acquaintance I'd not made before had been in touch. By this morning, our ranks had grown further. These people live in different parts of North America but also in Australia, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK.

Many hold math, science, or engineering degrees. One is a medical doctor, another is a lawyer. Two have commerce degrees. Some are retired. Five of us are girls.

We are, therefore, an impressive random sample of citizens of the world who think the climate report requires a second look. There is no evidence to suggest we are anti-science - quite the opposite. There's no evidence to suggest, as someone unkindly implied on Twitter, that we're morons. Again, quite the opposite.

Together we've already audited several chapters while collectively producing a stream of ideas, tips, and suggestions regarding possible future avenues of research. To have accomplished so much in so little time is amazing. It is also a testament to the power of ordinary people - once we're equipped with potent tools such as personal computers and e-mail.

Without the World Wide Web, a project like this would have been difficult, expensive, and horrendously time-consuming. Instead, conducting a citizen audit of this kind is now relatively painless logistically speaking, allowing us to focus our energy on the important tasks.

Long live the Internet. And long live independent thinkers who refuse to accept the word of authority figures. We are experienced, intelligent, worldly adults who expect to be treated as such. Now we're examining the climate report for ourselves.

See the list of Citizen Auditors

..

>> Help audit the UN climate report
>> The great peer-review fairy tale
>> Independent bloggers vs corporate environmentalists
>> Let there be no more scientific consensuses

Help Audit the UN Climate Report - Crowdsourcing Project

Volunteers needed for 3-10 hrs. Read through the list of references appearing at the end of one of the IPCC report's chapters and count up the peer-reviewed sources vs the grey literature.

How much of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is based on peer-reviewed literature? Recent examinations of two random chapters found only 25 percent and 58 percent of the sources cited were peer-reviewed journal articles.

These numbers conflict sharply with declarations by IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, that only peer-reviewed literature is relied on. Are these two chapters unrepresentative outliers? It is important that we find out. This, therefore, is a call for volunteers.

There are a total of 44 chapters in the reports written by Working Groups 1, 2, and 3. Each chapter ends with a list of references ranging from a couple of hundred to more than 800. Between three and ten hours are required to highlight and count the peer-reviewed sources versus the non-peer-reviewed ones.

The goal of this project is for each chapter to be counted thrice, by three volunteers working independently of one another. In the event that tallies differ dramatically, further examination will occur. Should they differ only marginally, the count that is most favourable to the IPCC will be used.

This project will not address the report's content. It is instead an audit of how well the IPCC lives up to its own peer-review standard as that standard has been described by its chairman and by news reports.

Because transparency is important, all documents produced during this audit will be made available online at the end of the project. An example of highlighted references in Chapter 5 of the Working Group 3 report appears here. (Originally a Microsoft Word document, it was converted automatically to HTML.)

If you wish to participate in this audit please give some thought beforehand to how you wish to be identified. The use of one's real name (first and last) is always preferable from a credibility perspective. Citizen auditors will be publicly recognized, in alphabetical order, on the auditor's list.

Understandably not everyone can risk repercussions in their employment situation (for example). Should you instead prefer to use a pseudonym – or to be identified as "anonymous" – your choice will be respected. Each chapter will be audited by at least one person willing to use their real name.

If you wish to be a citizen auditor for this project your task will be to read through the list of references and to highlight (and ultimately count) the ones published in academic peer-reviewed journals. In the event that you are uncertain about the status of a particular reference, you can request a second opinion by highlighting it in an alternative colour. [see FAQ here]

If you can complete this task within a week (and no later than the end of March 2010) please e-mail me at NOconsensus.org AT gmail.com. I will respond within 12 hours by sending you a Microsoft Word document in which the references from a particular chapter have been cut-and-pasted and already numbered.

Please indicate from the outset how you would like to be identified on the auditor's list. As well as your name, your city and country, your academic degrees, website URL, and e-mail address can be added at your request. If you require material to be sent to you in a non-Microsoft Word format please advise.

Let's count 'em up!

..

>> The great peer-review fairy tale
>> About half non-peer-reviewed
>> More dodgy citations in the Nobel-winning climate report
>> Yes Virginia, the climate bible relies on newspaper clippings
>> Greenpeace and the Nobel-winning climate report