Sentences with phrase «ipcc grey literature»

The accuracy of much of the PR firms to date has been very accurate to date as we have seen by the recent IPCC grey literature meltdown and the corruption revealed in climategate.

Not exact matches

The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors — and I would have thought that not only should biased «grey literature» be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work.

4) IPCC needs to stop citing grey literature such as WWF and Greenpeace reports with untraceable «data».

The glacier story has led the IPCC's critics to pore over its most recent report, focusing on claims that arise from the «grey literature» — normally taken to mean reports by governments and other organisations that are not published commercially or passed through academic channels.

To accept a role for grey literature at the IPCC, provided it is properly and critically assessed by the authors, is not to say that peer - reviewed publications should not dominate the assessments.

As we've seen over the last couple of years, many of the more outlandish and alarmist claims in the IPCC reports have been based not on peer - reviewed science, but on «grey literature» — the propaganda sheets and press releases distributed by fanatical green NGOs (many of which are part - funded by the European Commission — but that's another story).

Even when it turned out that the IPCC had take a completely wrong figure from «grey literature», the claim that Himalayan glaciers are vulnerable to melting persisted.

Haven't heard about all the «grey literature» which your noble IPCC accepts as «peer - reviewed» huh?

You allow «grey literature» in IPCC [«We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.»].

On the other hand, the IPCC rules explicitly allow grey literature but with a requirement that it should be labeled as such and that it should be quality checked.

There is a big difference between a private company employing a leading expert, and the IPCC employing a political activist who reviewed and published his own work grey literature (non peer reviewed) which amounted to little more than an advert for his own industry and by doing so helped push the IPCC's political agenda and fill his own bank balance, but also failed to provide any independent scientific evidence of a way forward.

IPCC authors added a grey envelope around the AR4 envelope, presumably to give rhetorical support for their false claim about models and observations; however, this envelope did not occur in AR4 or any peer reviewed literature.

From the caption to Figure 2 in SM's headpost: «IPCC authors added a grey envelope around the AR4 envelope, presumably to give rhetorical support for their false claim about models and observations; however, this envelope did not occur in AR4 or any peer reviewed literature.»

«A citizens audit of the IPCC study found that 5,587 cited references, nearly a third of all sources, were not peer - reviewed publications, but rather «grey literature,» such as press releases, newspaper and magazine articles, discussion papers, masters and PhD theses, working papers and advocacy literature published by environmental groups,» Sensenbrenner said.

Enhanced guidance on the use of «grey literature» — material not published in peer - reviewed scientific journals — has also been drawn up, and will be finalised by chairs of the IPCC's working groups in the coming months.

At the same time the IPCC should renounce, or at least severely restrict the use of, grey literature.

Considering the new scrutiny that grey literature is receiving — and should receive reports like those from the IPCC should cite the original science — undoubtedly these will be corrected in the next assessment report.

I have nothing much against the use of «grey literature» (or — I might as well come clean all at once — the precautionary principle, a revenue - neutral carbon tax and opposition to consumerism and overpopulation) but it's got to be solid «grey literature» — Agoumi wasn't — and you've got it to paraphrase it accurately — the IPCC didn't and still hasn't.

This was in the wake of «Glaciergate», of course — the discovery that «grey literature» had been included in IPCC reports, which are supposed to be produced by «science».

So, essentially, he provides circular argument of anthropogenic garbage by referencing IPCC 2007 report, yet IPCC has stated they do not do science but put together different scenarios using grey literature, propaganda, news clipping, and the supposed science K.T. does.

What's wrong with the IPCC goes far deeper than the question of the proportion of grey literature or quotas for non-white contributors.