IPCC strikes another blow for non-peer reviewed science

From The Orange County Register
There’s probably something in the IPCC’s periodic reports that’s not flawed. But it sure seems that every time someone looks close, the warts abound.

Over at ClimateQuotes.com there’s a fascinating post on yet another of the hyped, unsubstantiated catastrophic claims attributed to global warming.
Here’s the scoop: The IPCC claimed tourism was reduced because of wildfires, but the IPCC’s citation didn’t match its source. “They claimed there were millions of dollars in tourism losses, but their source did not make that claim,” says ClimateQuotes.

Here’s ClimateQuotes’ terrific summary:

1. The AR4 draft makes the claim that wildfires in Canada reduced tourism revenues.

2. They use a source that does not support their claims.

3. One reviewer points out that local impacts are different than regional impacts.

4. Author blames ‘literature’

5. Another reviewer wants an addition to the paragraph making clear that tourism, as a whole, may not be affected by wildfires.

6. Author claims the section is already too long, can’t add anything.

7. Yet another reviewer points out that tourism will be unaffected overall.

8. Author calls this comment ‘insightful,’ but doesn’t include in final report.

9. Final report is issued with claims not matching the source and reviewers totally ignored.

Sounds like more unsettling of the settled science, huh? They call it “peer-reviewed.” Read more.