Here's the link to the Press Release on the report, folks:
And here's a link to my take on the results :-)
Thank you to everyone who has taken part. The poll is now closing. Nine of you submitted original answers. They were:
The actual number: 5,587 references in the 2007 IPCC report were deemed by our citizen audit project not to be peer-reviewed. Even though the chairman has stated repeatedly that the report relies only and solely on peer-reviewed literature.
I leave you now with a question: How many Fs would it take on your child's report card for you to become concerned?
Been waiting for your results! Can't wait! Keep up the work that you do...
Donna, I, too, hope that there is a vehicle out there in which to publish the results...peer reviewed, of course!
Does the winner, as usual, get the jelly beans?
Donna, the following completes the paragraph from which the quote is taken.
A recent editorial in Nature was right to conclude that an over-reliance on peer-reviewed publication "has disadvantages that should be countered by adequate provision of time and resources for independent assessment and, in the midst of controversies, publicly funded agencies providing comprehensive, reliable and prompt complementary information".
It's just a shame this does not appear to be the way they actually operate.
Dear Bob Malloy,
What an awesome quote. Thanks so much for that :-) Looking forward to reading the entire PDF.
I hope the team puts the results of your analysis together in the form of a reviewable paper and send it to Nature. That will ensure the facts are in the public domain, if they've got the bottle to publish it.
Ditto -what Lorri said.
Good work Donna.
It hardly even bugs me anymore that you thought of this first. ;)
Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.
From the pages of Lancet.
Richard Horton, then editor of The Lancet, contributed a guest editorial for the Medical Journal of Australia (Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion and crack-up; MJA 2000; 172: 148-149) in which he wrote:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
Thanks for brightening a dull day with your fun poll.
Looking forward to seeing how near I got, but I expect I will have underestimated the deviousness of the IPCC :-))
the fact that you stopped the options at 8000 is illuminating ;)
We're looking forward for the results. I'm sure we'll have a good laugh at all that settled science.
Yikes! The URL above has a typo. It should be: http://www.nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/.
Or just click on my name.
This poll is a version of the "how many jellybeans" in the jar guessing game. For more info about the citizen audit of IPCC references please visit www.NoFrakkingConsesus.blogspot.com
I've been looking forward to the results of your crowd source project since you first announced it! Thank you to you and your team of volunteers!