Shining (Chanukah) lights on the IPCC “big pictures”

As I write this post (December 5), elsewhere in the cyber-universe it is already December 6 – which just happens to be the first anniversary of this blog’s appearance in the blogosphere.

December 6 also happens to be the night when we light six (well, seven really as one is used to light the others!) Chanukah candles.

It is already December 6, “downunder” where Peter B. has gone above and beyond the call of duty in order to meet my wish for a combined “blog anniversary” and Chanukah gift: Version 1 of FAR_OUT (Fourth Assessment Report – Objectively Uniformly Tagged), a project we’ve been working on since March, is now ready for prime-time live … So that – whether you celebrate Chanukah or not – your mouse will help you shine a light on the IPCC’s AR4.

In this version, we have annotated all 44 Chapters of AR4’s Working Groups 1, 2 & 3. You will fnd a number of tables which summarize the “tagging” we have implemented to date – at different levels: Chapter, Working Group and Overall.

Key individuals from the Climategate emails have been identified, as well as Journals in which they have published; citations are linked to their respective references; and we’ve also identified (and tagged) other areas for investigation, such as papers that were not peer-reviewed, or perhaps not published till 2007, and/or perhaps were authored or co-authored by a key individual and/or one who was also amongst the authors of the chapter you’re viewing (or of another chapter within AR4).

Be sure to take a look as well at the tables which summarize the Reviewer Comments on the Second Order Draft.

Please do take your mouse for a stroll … dive right into FAR_OUT – or start by taking a look at our blog, where the history is archived and where we welcome your feedback and comments.

Happy Chanukah … and happy surfing.


3 thoughts on “Shining (Chanukah) lights on the IPCC “big pictures”

  1. Congratulations.

    While working on the Audit, I found that even editorials could be peer reviewed. A special issue of Science or Nature was edited by a researchers in Maryland. Even the editorial for that ´Special´ was cited in AR4: looked like padding, to me.

  2. Excellent work. In a right side up world this would be the opening of all evening news broadcasts (just ignore that in such a world there would not be an ippc).
    It’s now on my (in Dutch). Un/surprisingly, the Citizen Audit was mentioned once, no twice in The Netherlands, and i expect no different for FAR OUT.

    Auditing the reviewer comments in more detail is worthwhile, as ‘Accepted y/n’ gives little information (sorry for telling you what you’re aware of).

    What is in the column ‘papers’ in table Summary of Reviewer Comments -SOD ?

    Stefan Langeveld

    • Hi Stefan, many thanks for this feedback! Analysis of the “reviewer comments” has been quite challenging, for a variety of reasons – some of which I observed last May while we were working on this:

      IPCC monopoly gatekeeper rules very “elastic”

      As you will see from the above post, unfortunately, the IPCC has chosen not to make analysis particularly easy, because the responses are contained within a narrative, rather than being distinctly categorized. So we’re still working on quantifying the actual numbers of different “responses” to the reviewer comments.

      But the “papers” column refers to the number of publications referenced – in any chapter of the specific Working Group you happen to be viewing – which were authored or co-authored by the Reviewer. e.g. if you were viewing the Reviewer Comments in WG 1 Chapter 6, you would see that “Mann, ME” had 23 papers, so this means that in WG 1, there are 23 publications in the References, of which Mann was the primary or co-author.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s