From the New York Times:
Now climate researchers have detected such a feedback loop at work in the Arctic. It is well known that the region is warming faster than anywhere else on Earth. Yet scientists have yet to agree on why. Some have theorized that warmer air from the south was responsible, while others blame a change in cloud cover.
Read the full article here.
It may be time for the United Nations’ climate-studies scientists to go back to school.
And they gave 21 of the report’s 44 chapters a grade of “F.”
The team, recruited by the climate-change skeptics behind the website NoConsensus.org, found that 5,600 of the 18,500 sources in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report were not peer reviewed.
A group of 40 auditors — including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe — have released a shocking report card on the U.N.’s landmark climate-change research report.
The full article can be read here. I looked up the website that sponsored the study to find out if this was credible look at the IPCC report and I have come to the conclusion that this is not a very credible report. Here is why I think this is so. First, the report has been sponsored by a website devoted to proving global warming is a hoax. So right of the bat their credibility gets a big black mark in the area of objectivity. Secondly, I looked the l ist of volunteers to find out what kind of background these folks have. The list can be found here. The list contains the names and for some the credentials of those who examined the IPCC report. A big strike for me against their credibility is that there are few if any actual climatologists listed, or at least from what can be determined from the list. There are some scientists with impressive sounding credentials but nothing really directly connected to climate science. Many on the list appear to be bloggers. Knowing the extent of my scientific expertise, that doesn’t give me much faith in the report either. A couple of the examiners remained anonymous which is a big strike against credibility and many have no information regarding their credentials so there isn’t an easy way to check out their backgrounds. Let’s say for the sake of argument that all on the list have impeccable credentials in climate science. One report cannot overturn decades of research done by thousands of scientists across the globe. So for me, this news report doesn’t do much for me and only represents more bad science.