IPCCs fjerde hovedrapport (Norwegian Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "IPCCs fjerde hovedrapport" in Norwegian language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Norwegian rank
1st place
1st place
24th place
46th place
1,778th place
1,377th place
4,170th place
28th place
30th place
94th place
241st place
440th place
197th place
134th place
234th place
369th place
818th place
2,296th place
1,779th place
7th place
79th place
345th place
36th place
119th place
152nd place
657th place
965th place
2,862nd place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
3,126th place
2,608th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,558th place
2,104th place
low place
low place
66th place
187th place
low place
low place
1,677th place
6th place
9,668th place
47th place
219th place
162nd place
low place
424th place
7th place
33rd place
7,843rd place
low place
6,903rd place
5,986th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
low place
166th place
869th place
low place
low place
857th place
279th place
269th place
638th place
low place
low place
3,100th place
1,724th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
8th place
21st place
2nd place
9th place
1,047th place
870th place
1,076th place
5,447th place
1,216th place
3,831st place
9th place
39th place
882nd place
2,374th place

aftenbladet.no

  • Ellen Kongsnes (10. februar 2010). ««Derfor kan jorda friskmeldes» I dag, torsdag klokka klokka 18.00 holder professor Ole Henrik Ellestad foredrag i Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger om hvorfor han mener jordkloden kan frismeldes.». aftenbladet.no. Stavanger Aftenblad. Arkivert fra originalen 12. februar 2010. Besøkt 12. februar 2010. «HIMALAYAGATE HIMALAYA: Den kanadiske geografen J. Graham Cogley og en gruppe andre forskere har avslørt at klimapanelets rapport hadde tatt feil om at Himalaya-breen vil være smeltet bort i 2035. Avsløringene kalles også «glaciergate». BEIJINGGATE MÅLESTASJONER: Urbaniseringens betydning for temperaturøkningen er et sentralt tema i klimaforskningen. Mindre skog og mer asfalt, kan gi varmere klima, mener klimaforskere, men ikke alle. MÅLESTASJONER: Nå er det avslørt at flere titalls målestasjoner på landsbygda i Beijing, Australia, New Zealand og Russland er blitt borte. KRITIKK: Kritikerne hevder at de er fjernet fordi målingene ikke sammenfalte med forskernes hypotese om at urbanisering øker temperaturen på hele kloden, og ikke bare i byene. CLIMATEGATE NOVEMBER: «Climategate» rullet opp i november i fjor, da et datainnbrudd avslørte flere tusen e-poster mellom forskere ved Climate Research Unit (CRU) ved University of East Anglia. E-POSTER: E-postene avslørte hvordan noen forskere diskuterte hvordan de kunne holde informasjon tilbake som de mente ville skade klimadebatten. PRESTISJE: CRU er blant de viktigste klimaforskningsinstitusjonene i verden og har blant annet ansvaret for en av to anerkjente tidsserier med globale temperaturmålinger.» 

aftenposten.no

albionmonitor.com

bbc.co.uk

news.bbc.co.uk

dagbladet.no

dagogtid.no

dailymail.co.uk

docs.google.com

doi.org

eastangliaemails.com

  • Fred Pearce (1. februar 2010). «Strange case of moving weather posts and a scientist under siege». guardian.co.uk (på engelsk). The Guardian. Arkivert fra originalen 12. februar 2010. Besøkt 11. februar 2010. «Jones and his Chinese-American colleague Wei-Chyung Wang, of the University at Albany in New York, are being accused of scientific fraud by an independent British researcher over the contents of a research paper back in 1990. That paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Nature, claimed to answer an important question in climate change science: how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming? [...] reveal that Jones was hurt, angry and uncertain about the allegations. "It is all malicious … I seem to be a marked man now," he wrote in April 2007.» 

epa.gov

eureferendum.blogspot.com

foxnews.com

gallup.com

grida.no

guardian.co.uk

hotair.com

independent.co.uk

  • Think-tanks take oil money and use it to fund climate deniers i The Independent "An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate change science to undermine public acceptance of man-made global warming, environment experts claimed last night."
  • Michael McCarthy (10. februar 2010). «Climategate scientist 'hid flaws in data', say sceptics». independent.co.uk (på engelsk). The Independent. Arkivert fra originalen 12. februar 2010. Besøkt 12. februar 2010. «Professor Jones and a colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany suggested in an influential 1990 paper in the journal Nature that the urban heat island effect was minimal – and cited as supporting evidence a long series of temperature measurements from Chinese weather stations, half in the countryside and half in cities, supplied by Professor Wei-Chyung. The Nature paper was used as evidence in the most recent report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, it has been reported that when climate sceptics asked for the precise locations of the 84 stations, Professor Jones at first declined to release the details. And when eventually he did release them, it was found that for the ones supposed to be in the countryside, there was no location given.» 

informath.org

ipcc-wg2.gov

ipcc-wg3.de

ipcc.ch

iucn.org

leshatton.org

mandagmorgen.no

  • Halve Norge mener klimatrusselen er overdrevet Arkivert 23. mars 2010 hos Wayback Machine. i MandagMorgen 15. mars 2010: Mandag Morgen har tatt temperaturen på det norske folks forhold til klimaforandringene. 45 prosent mener at klimatrusselen er overdrevet, og 25 prosent har endret mening i løpet av det siste året – de tror ikke klimatrusselen er så alvorlig som mange mente for et år eller to siden. Siden det store klimamøtet i København, har klimasaken slitt i motvind. Den store, globale og forpliktende klimaavtalen ble det ingenting av, og FNs klimapanel har gjort feil som har svekket troverdigheten.

nationalpost.com

network.nationalpost.com

  • Benny Peiser: Climate libel chill – Professor Benny Peiser sier blant annet dette «The revelations exposed by the CRU e mails require the full disclosure of all documents and correspondence in this alleged fraud case. Until the whole affair is fully and publicly investigated, the reputation and integrity of leading climate scientists will remain to appear tainted and discredited.»
  • Lawrence Solomon: IPCC faces another desertion – its own past chair!
  • Corcoran, Terence (12. mars 2010). «Terence Corcoran: Remember Amazongate?». nationalpost.com (på engelsk). National Post. Arkivert fra originalen 13. mars 2010. Besøkt 13. mars 2010. «But this week new research supports the original Amazongate version of the science. […] Researchers at Boston University, headed by Ranga B. Myneni, professor of geography and environment, found that satellite readings used by other scientists were based on contaminated data. In a paper published by Geophysical Research Letters, Prof. Myneni and associates say they found no evidence that the Amazon suffers extreme tree mortality, excessive forest greening or other trauma under extreme climate conditions. […] The Myneni paper examined the impact on the Amazon of a major 2005 drought. Some scientists have argued that the 2005 drought caused significant rainforest disturbances. But Prof. Myneni says that science is based on satellite data that cannot be reproduced because much of it is “atmosphere corrupted.” Once the corrupted data is removed, a new assessment is possible, The Boston research shows that much of the speculation around the Amazon either greening up or browning under extreme conditions to be false. During the 2005 drought, Prof. Myneni reports, the Amazon behaved no differently than it did during 2003 and 2004, when there was no drought.» 

nature.com

newsweek.com

nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com

  • Laframboise, Donna (4. mars 2010). «Almost Half Non-Peer-Reviewed» (på engelsk). Donna Laframboise. Besøkt 26. mars 2010. «I counted the references cited in the final, published version of Chapter 11 and got a tally of 330. Of those, fully 139 – or 42 percent – were non-peer-reviewed grey literature.» 
  • Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report: Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.

nrc.nl

nytimes.com

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com

realclimate.org

sciencemag.org

sfgate.com

sft.no

spiegel.de

telegraph.co.uk

telegraph.co.uk

blogs.telegraph.co.uk

theaustralian.com.au

thenewamerican.com

  • Rebecca Terrell (10. februar 2010). «Chinagate: The Continuing Climategate Saga» (på engelsk). NewAmerican. Arkivert fra originalen 12. februar 2010. Besøkt 11. februar 2010. «Once AR4 made its debut, mathematician Doug Keenan questioned the legitimacy of the Jones/Wang research and accused the climate scientists of fraud. Of the 84 stations Jones and Wang referenced, Keenan discovered that 35 of them had substantial moves and the remaining 49 had no histories, so moves could not be determined. His findings were published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment.» 

theregister.co.uk

  • http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/ Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned] "More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported. [...] The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review," "The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.""

timesonline.co.uk

ucar.edu

ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu

uib.no

bjerknes.uib.no

unibe.ch

ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch

wattsupwiththat.com

web.archive.org

webcitation.org

whrc.org

wsj.com

online.wsj.com

  • Climate Group Admits Mistakes
  • Stephens, Brett. «Climategate: Follow the Money» Kronikk i The Wall Street Journal 2. desember 2009 "Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus." [...] To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.0027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere. [...] documents leaked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s. [...] Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. American states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal. And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely."

youtube.com

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucf3BWLrw3Y Raj Pachauri Global Warming Climate Change Low Carbon Skepticisim Deniers Denialism Commonwealth Club California Air Resources Board, 2010-01-29: Relevant sitering ca 1.15 ut i video: – And this is not something that the authors working on IPCC reports have invented. This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions.