Peer Review Redefined
Posted by Jeff Id on February 1, 2010
It seems that in practice, IPCC accepted peer review applies only to articles of climate change. This came by email from Climatequotes. Click the headline below for climatequotes site. Jeff Id
Even though Jones was head of a different group, I think this quote is relevant as the pattern occurs throughout the IPCC.
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
[Jeff Id – Phil Climategate Jones on Michaels and McKitrick’s demonstration of urban heat island effect email titled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.]
Guest post from Climatequotes:
No that headline is not a joke. The IPCC cited a guide for Antarctica tour operators on decontaminating boots and clothing. Here it is.
The reference is in the Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II, section 15.7.2 Economic activity and sustainability in the Antarctic. The claim is:
“The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability (see Section 15.6.3), and have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines for tourist landings on the Antarctic Peninsula (IAATO, 2005).”
This is referenced as:
IAATO, 2005: Update on boot and clothing decontamination guidelines and the introduction and detection of diseases in Antarctic wildlife: IAATO’s perspective. Paper submitted by the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (IAATO) to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) XXVIII. IAATO, 10 pp. http://www.iaato.org/info.html.
So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the “multiple stresses of climate change…have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines”. That might be laughable in and of itself, but the problem is the article doesn’t even mention climate change. Once. Nothing at all about global warming, or temperature increase. Nothing!
I can’t think of a citation any more pathetic. Read the report, and tell me if you can find anything.