What the IPCC Citizen’s Audit really means
Yesterday, the IPCC Citizen's Audit results were released. They show that out of 18,531 references in the AR4, 5,587 (30%) are not peer-reviewed. These results are making their rounds around the internet, but what do they really mean?
First, I need to state that I was involved in the audit. I was an auditor, and I also helped Donna Laframboise in a few other ways, such as creating a guide to auditing the report. If you've ever visited this site in the past, you know that I have looked fairly in depth at the AR4 and found several interesting things, such as the boot cleaning guide, the master's student story, the master's students citations, the false wildfire-tourism claim, all the news articles, the issues with the authors falsely citing themselves, and other interesting stuff. I already know that the AR4 isn't entirely based on peer-reviewed material.
Help audit the IPCC AR4 – Group project
Over the past couple months, story after story has emerged about shoddy references in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). While the IPCC, and Pachauri in particular, claim the AR4 is based on all peer-review (or the 'vast majority'), this claim is clearly suspect. However, the process which has revealed this claim to be suspicious has been somewhat haphazardly done by various bloggers working independently of each other.
Until now.
How to audit the AR4 references
The Citizen's Audit of the IPCC's AR4 has begun! Read this post for details. Here are some general guidelines that may help you in your auditing, and also some tips on how to further pursue questionable citations if you find any.
This assumes you have already e-mailed Donna (NOconsensus.org AT gmail.com) and then received a Microsoft Word document containing a numbered reference list from a particular chapter of the AR4. If you haven't yet, e-mail her!