From Roger J. Pielke Jr.'s blog:
This post summarizes and reviews the systematic misrepresentation of the science of disasters and climate change in major science assessments, partly for my own purposes, but also to explain that there is a pattern of behavior taking place in this community that should be of concern to anyone who cares about the integrity of science, regardless of their position on climate policies and politics.Read the whole thing.
What I document below includes the following:
The questions that I have are, does anyone in the mainstream scientific or media communities actually care? Or is climate change politics so important that we cannot simultaneously worry about standards of scientific integrity?
- Reliance on non-peer reviewed, unsupportable studies rather than the relevant peer reviewed literature.
- Reliance on and featuring non-peer reviewed work conducted by the authors of the assessment reports.
- Repeated reliance on a small number of secondary of tertiary sources, repeatedly cited such that intellectual provenance is lost.