Os leitores deste blog já conhecem as tropelias que este senhor, e o gang do IPCC, cometem. Elas estão agregadas neste link. De seguida resumiremos a vertente específica da natureza da investigação no seio do IPCC, e como ela tem vindo a ser moldada ao longo dos tempos. Todas as citações abaixo estão linkadas à sua fonte original, com realces da nossa responsabilidade:
|The report and the scientists who wrote it called the document conservative. It used only peer reviewed published science and was edited by representatives of 113 governments that also had to agree to every word, including those opposed to measures like the Koyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions.|
|The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. So this is really hundreds and thousands of years of research efforts that go into the distinct material that comes into the report.|
|This is the key document on climate change, and from now on you can forget any others you may have read or seen or heard about. This is the one that matters. It is the tightly distilled, peer-reviewed research of several thousand scientists, fully endorsed, without qualification, by all the world's major governments. Its official name is a mouthful: the Policymakers' Summary of the Synthesis Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment.|
|"The process is so robust - almost to a fault - that I'm not sure there is too much scope for error. Where there are gaps we are very candid in admitting we don't know enough about this subject," he said.|
"Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. I'm not sure there is any better process that anyone could have followed.
|When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration in the on-going round of scientific review by IPCC, he said, "IPCC studies only peer-review science. 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."|
|IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out. The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments.|
Durante anos andou a vender esta religião. Perante as recente contradições, nomeadamente dos Himalaias, o Pachauri teve que ensaiar uma fuga para a frente. Como o referimos aqui, agora já vale quase tudo:
|Let me emphasise that the others are not errors and it is perfectly valid to use non-peer reviewed literature provided we look at the source of information that is contained in that non peer-reviewed literature and make sure that it's authentic.|
You must realise that there are some parts of the world where you really don't have published research material. And therefore it's been the practice of the IPCC to use non peer-reviewed literature. With, of course, a lot of caveats and careful authentication of the source of that information.
Mas a este tretas tem que ser feitas mais perguntas inconvenientes! Como a de explicar porque é que o IPCC tem 5600 referências não peer-reviewed? Talvez os jornalistas portugueses possam ser pioneiros, o que duvido...