BREAKING: IPCC's 2007 report riddled with non-peer reviewed students' work - dozens of cites

The credibility of the 'science' section of the IPCC report is hanging by a thread after fresh revelations that the Working Group 1 chapters relied on more 'non-peer-reviewed science' as the basis of its catastrophic global warming claims.

Far from relying only on peer-reviewed studies published in top journals, the WG-1 section turns out to have relied on non-reviewed work by 10 PhD students, while a fresh analysis of the total IPCC AR4 report has found a total of more than 40 claims based on the work of university students, some of them only working at Masters level.

The analysis also found some of these cites referenced New Zealand university students.

The 10 PhD students cited approvingly in the WG-1 report are:

Working Group I:

Crooks, S., 2004: Solar Influence On Climate. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.

Foster, S.S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Science, Southampton, 231 p.

Oram, D.E., 1999: Trends of Long-Lived Anthropogenic Halocarbons in the Southern Hemisphere and Model Calculations of Global Emissions. PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 249 pp.

Eyer, M., 2004: Highly Resolved δ13C Measurements on CO2 in Air from Antarctic Ice Cores. PhD Thesis, University of Bern, 113 pp.

Foster, S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for Use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

Driesschaert, E., 2005: Climate Change over the Next Millennia Using LOVECLIM, a New Earth System Model Including Polar Ice Sheets. PhD Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 214 pp, http://edoc.bib.ucl.ac.be:81/ETD-db/collection/available/BelnUcetd-10172005-185914/

Harder, M., 1996: Dynamik, Rauhigkeit und Alter des Meereises in der Arktis. PhD Thesis, Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany, 124 pp

Jiang, Y.D., 2005: The Northward Shift of Climatic Belts in China during the Last 50 Years, and the Possible Future Changes. PhD Thesis, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, China Academy of Science, Beijing, 137 pp.

Somot, S., 2005: Modélisation Climatique du Bassin Méditerranéen: Variabilité et Scénarios de Changement Climatique. PhD Thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 333 pp.

Vérant, S., 2004: Etude des Dépressions sur l’Europe de l’Ouest : Climat Actuel et Changement Climatique. PhD thesis

The  New Zealand students cited in AR4 are:

Anderson, B., 2004: The response of Ko Roimate o Hine Hukatere Franz Josef Glacier to climate change. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch (WG-2 report)

and

Duncan, A., 2005: Solar building developments. Master Applied Science thesis, Massey University Library, Palmerston North, New Zealand. (WG-3 report)

See the full list of Masters/PhD students' work at Climatequotes

Comments

[David Baigent]

The "Global Warming Science Fiction" is settled then !!!

[Fark]

PhD students, that's not much better that kindergarten is it?

[antipodean59]

"PhD students, that's not much better that kindergarten is it?"

Na! Post Hole Diggers.

[CM]

>>>...the Working Group 1 chapters relied on...<<<

Hang on. Where is the actual analysis which demonstrates how entire chapters RELY on these Master's theses? That implies (explcitly) that without the theses the chapters would fall apart.

You'd never in a million years allow climate scientists to make such a leap. Why are you allowed to?

[AGW IZ DOGMA]

CM,

Oh the many ways that the AGW/ACC proponents have for reversing an argument and putting others on the defensive. It's not our job to prove AGW/ACC wrong. It's their job to prove it right.

If you want to see how real science works, look into the case of the lost neutrinos:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/dancing.html

When EVERYTHING did NOT add up, the scientists kept working at it until it did. They didn't just fudge the numbers to save themselves time.

I don't know how criminal prosecutions work outside of the U.S., but we have a policy of "Innocent until proven guilty." The AGW proponents are the prosecution and the human race (especially those of us in the more developed countries) are the defendants. An impartial jury would find us innocent. If you want to declare yourself guilty go ahead. We'd be glad to carry out the sentence you would lay upon the rest of us.

[CM]

>>>They didn't just fudge the numbers to save themselves time.<<<

Where have the climate change numbers been fudged?

As for the rest - climate change presents a pretty serious risk. It's not binary as you're suggesting (guilty or not guilty). We have to continually evaluate the risk based on what we know and can predict. And we can decide to do nothing, or a whole range of somethings. Based on the level of risk, it seems pretty clear that doing nothing would be the worst option.

[Ian Wishart]

But doing what exactly, CM?

You sound like Jones to Capt Mainwaring in Dad's Army.

The planet is warming, but if that warming is mostly natural, then all the 350.org bs and Gareth Renowden bs ain't going to amount to a hill of beans in actually preventing the inevitable.

Better to simply adapt to a warmer climate, than spend money trying to emulate Canute.

[CM]

>>>But doing what exactly, CM?<<<

Well clearly hat's up to all of us to decide, via our elected representatives.

>>>The planet is warming, but if that warming is mostly natural, then all the 350.org bs and Gareth Renowden bs ain't going to amount to a hill of beans in actually preventing the inevitable.<<<

Part of the necessary risk assessment is determining whether it's natural or not. The evidence is heavily weighting to it not being natural. And yes I'm reading your book and it's trying to convince me otherwise but it just doesn't present the body of knowledge in a balanced way. You're like a judge only listening to the defence.

>>>Better to simply adapt to a warmer climate, than spend money trying to emulate Canute.<<<

If the evidence was heavily weighted towards the rate of change being natural, I would agree.

[Term Paper]

Thanks you for sharing and may you have many thought provoking conversations!