OK. Just found back this subthread. Damn I miss G Reader. Anyway.
***
The second link by GaryM has already been provided by Skiphil:
> 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.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10514468&pnum=0
Not unlike the first link. In fact, compare that quote from Patchy with the quote from the first link provided both by GaryM and Skiphil before him:
> We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. [...] I can’t think of a better process.
Perhaps Patchy lacks imagination, but I could certainly think of a better process. In fact, it would be quite something if Patchy himself could not think of a better process. He’s a pulp fiction writer, after all.
Perhaps Patchy did not meant it that way.
***
In any case, we can see that both quotes carry similar ideas:
- The IPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed literature.
- The IPCC reports result from a very good process.
Both quotes implement these ideas differently.
In the second, only the assessment is developed on the basis of peer-reviewed literature. Since this way of selling the IPCC does not prevent non-peer-reviewed literature to be considered during the deliberative process, as long as it’s not the basis for the assessments, this claim would be immune from Donna’s falsification efforts.
But in the first quote, the it does seem to refer to the process itself, which does not square well with the first interpretation. It is quite clear that the process leaves room to grey litterature, as was made clear in april 2009:
The key points discussed were the need to involve governments early enough in the scoping process, to guarantee a good coverage of relevant cross-cutting issues, to ensure a good balance of expertise and regional sensitivities in the Venice scoping meeting, to refine the treatment of regional issues, to ensure an efficient iterative process in the preparation of the Synthesis Report (SYR), to enable a good participation of developing country participants and authors during the
whole AR5 process. The scoping process and its various stages were discussed in some detail, including the possible need for an additional scoping meeting. It was suggested that contact groups be formed to deal with regional issues and SYR topics. It was also requested that a special effort be made with the help of focal points to identify and make use of grey literature and publications in all languages.
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/bureau-sessions/bureau39rep.pdf
Patchy should certainly work on getting his story straight from one interview to the next.
***
The Hark citation can also be found at Donna’s, who used it to show that Patchy was wrong to say that the IPCC does not use newspaper clippings because (check this) the IPCC cited three newspaper articles.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/02/03/yes-virginia-the-climate-bible-relies-on-newspaper-clippings/
Some eminent scientists smell a whiff of literalism in that op-ed, which might explain Donna’s biblical ringtone.
***
All in all, Donna’s audit does seem to rest on the assumption that one citation is worth as much as the next.
This appears in her crisp interpretation of a “100% claim” which she puts into Patchy’s mouth. This also appears in the way she counts her percentages of grey literature. This finally appears even more starkly in the way she constructs her Virginia op-ed.
I find this presumption problematic. Patchy’s point does seem to be better understood by the claim that the IPCC assessments are based on peer-reviewed literature. This does not imply that every citation shares an equal part in the assessment.
Anyway.
***
TL:DR — it’s divide-and-conquer all over again.