Read here. Of course, we are somewhat biased ourselves about this report. The C3 editor was one of some forty plus individuals reviewing the IPCC chapters for non-compliance.
Since the world was told by the mainstream media, big-government leftists, and environmental fanatical activists that the IPCC climate reports were based on peer-researched science, Donna Laframboise of the No Frakking Consensus blog decided to conduct an audit of those claims. End result? Close to 50% of the IPCC report's chapters are not based on scientific research/evidence, but instead are based on anecdotal opinions and hearsay from the global warming alarmists and environmental activists - a science travesty, so-to-speak.
"21 of 44 chapters [48%] in the United Nations' Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F on a report card we are releasing today. Forty citizen auditors from 12 countries examined 18,531 sources cited in the report – finding 5,587 to be not peer-reviewed....Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called "grey literature."....We've been told this report is the gold standard. We've been told it's 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal."