Debunking the IPCC – Why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can’t be trusted, by Donna Laframboise. It’s important to understand why people have become sceptical of the IPCC. One of the key reasons is the pretence that this organisation has some sort of scientific credibility; in point of fact, much of the background work is based on material put together by a mishmash of NGOs, often to the detriment of the actual science research supplied to the Working Groups.
AccessIPCC’s FAR_OUT – Canadian blogger Hilary Ostrov and Australian computer programmer Peter B. have given the climate change world a gift this week. Since March they’ve been hyperlinking and annotating the 3,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released in 2007 . The result is AccessIPCC.com.
IPCC Criticism – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) officially released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007. This document is often regarded as the definitive word on the science behind global warming. However, AR4 gives a distorted, misleading, biased and often erroneous picture. Examples of these distortions are listed here.
This is a site developed by Peter Bobroff in Australia, that went live in December 2010, and [full disclosure] on which I worked.
In the words of Donna Laframboise, it is “A powerful new research tool”. As she wrote in a post (which I reproduced on the AccessIPCC blog, because it is a terrific introduction and tutorial):
Canadian blogger Hilary Ostrov and Australian computer programmer Peter B. have given the climate change world a gift this week. Since March they’ve been hyperlinking and annotating the 3,000-page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report released in 2007 . The result is AccessIPCC.com.
Those of us who’ve been taking a close look at the 2007 report (also known as AR4) have identified numerous concerns. Now we have a tool to analyze it more comprehensively than ever before.
The more than 18,000 references on which the IPCC builds its case have been coded via an automated process. This means one can now visually scan a chapter and see which citations are of potential concern. To gain a clean designation (and thus remain untagged by AccessIPCC), a reference must meet stringent criteria:
[…]
This is Version 1 of AccessIPCC. And remember, it has been produced by volunteers. Hilary cautions us that the project is not yet complete and is “far from perfect.” Some of the codes will no doubt need correcting. (There’s a dedicated blog where discussions of that nature can take place.)
That being said, AccessIPCC represents an enormous leap forward. We now have a more user-friendly – and immeasurably richer – way of evaluating the IPCC’s Nobel-winning report.
AccessIPCC is currently being incorporated into another brilliantly helpful project that Peter (the wizard!) is working on – although I don’t have an estimated release date to report … but I sure hope it will be soon!
In the meantime … other “testimonials” are available on request:-)
Hi Grumpy,
Greetings from Beautiful British Columbia!
Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the likes ‘n links … and also to say, nice blog you have here 🙂
One site you might want to add to this IPCC page of yours is AccessIPCC’s FAR_OUT (Fourth Assessment Report – Objectively Uniformly Tagged).
This is a site developed by Peter Bobroff in Australia, that went live in December 2010, and [full disclosure] on which I worked.
In the words of Donna Laframboise, it is “A powerful new research tool”. As she wrote in a post (which I reproduced on the AccessIPCC blog, because it is a terrific introduction and tutorial):
AccessIPCC is currently being incorporated into another brilliantly helpful project that Peter (the wizard!) is working on – although I don’t have an estimated release date to report … but I sure hope it will be soon!
In the meantime … other “testimonials” are available on request:-)
Cheers,
Hilary
Thanks Hilary – I’ve added it to the page. And you to the blogrolls. I’m not sure how I missed you off but that grievous error is now corrected.