RSS

IPCC claims three page paper is a 'study'

08 Feb

Another questionable citation from the IPCC’s AR4. In WGIII, section 5.3.3 Aviation. They are talking about a study done by the group, Green by Design, about new aircraft designs:

“Concepts considered included alternative aircraft configurations such as the blended wing body and the laminar flying wing, and the use of an unducted fan (open rotor) power plant. The study concluded that these two aircraft concepts could offer significant fuel burn reduction potential compared with a conventional aircraft design carrying an equivalent payload. Other studies (Leifsson and Mason, 2005) have suggested similar results.”

What are the other studies? Leifsson and Mason is referenced as:

Leifsson, L.T. and W.H. Mason, 2005: The Blended Wing Body Aircraft, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, VA, accessed 30/05/07.

Virginia Tech, not bad. Until you look at the paper. It is only three pages long, unless you include the pictures pasted in, then it is eight. There are only six references, and four of them are for the five pages of pictures. Of the two real references, one is a presentation the authors gave at a conference.

Read the paper. It isn’t in a journal, it isn’t a PHD or Master’s Thesis, it isn’t a ‘study’ at all. I don’t know why it was written. I’ve contacted the author, and have not received a response.

When the IPCC says “Other studies have suggested similar results” what they mean is they found a paper that said what they wanted. Except, it only says half of what they wanted. They say, “the use of an unducted fan (open rotor) power plant” is one of “these two aircraft concepts could offer significant fuel burn reduction potential“. This study doesn’t mention anything about that at all. As far as I can tell (comment if you think I’m wrong) there is no original research in this three page paper at all.

Why even include this ‘other study’? The original study was done by the group Greener by Design. Here is the original study they were backing up:

GbD, 2001: The Technology Challenge. Greener by Design, accessed 30/05/07.

Not actually a study either, although if you go on their site they have far more in depth information than the Virginia Tech ‘study’. Perhaps simply citing a group with Green in their name didn’t sound official enough, they had to reference ‘Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University’.

I’m not claiming that the figures the IPCC gives are wrong. I’m just showing, again, that those who claim the IPCC is the gold standard are only kidding themselves. That paper wouldn’t have a dream of being published in any journal, yet the IPCC calls it a ‘study’ and cites it. That’s just plain lazy, at best, and downright devious otherwise. They are either incompetent or misleading. Maybe both.

[wp_campaign_2]

Advertisements
 
5 Comments

Posted by on February 8, 2010 in IPCC, Uncategorized

 

Tags: ,

5 responses to “IPCC claims three page paper is a 'study'

  1. Silence is Scuttled

    February 9, 2010 at 12:20 am

    more pee revue
    that is how you know you are dealing with experts
    they are only asking us to trust them
    the little green men come to serve us – they say so.
    don’t run – they are our friends

     
  2. Marion Morrison

    February 10, 2010 at 11:26 am

    So…you’ve found a single sentence that mentions a “concepts considered” which comes from a 3 page source and simply refers to the possibility of future aircraft development, nothing more – you think this proves…what exactly?
    How many other sources does the IPCC use in the report you’ve excerpted above?
    As with so much skeptic commentary, this is purely a desperate attempt to discover anything, absolutely anything, that can be rationalized as ‘proof’ of a vaguely defined paranoia.

     
  3. Chris

    February 12, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Marion Morrison – still another GW believer clinging on by the fingernails to a totally discredited religion. You will fall eyes-closed to the truth, screaming into the abyss with all the other uninformed gullible losers.

     
  4. Pingback: Anonymous
  5. Marion Morrison

    February 13, 2010 at 11:43 pm

    Sure, now I’m really convinced, Chris. You make a lot of sense there. Just keep telling yourself that I’m the one with my eyes closed.

     

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: