Gate du Jour – Now it’s Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4

Donna Laframboise, who gave us the list of World Wildlife Fund non peer reviewed studies cited in the IPCC AR4 continues to make lists. Here’s her latest list. Those calm, rational, thoughtful folks at Greenpeace seem to have had a significant hand in the IPCC climate bible.

She writes:

Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace – an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)

In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).

Read more at her blog here. In the meantime, here’s the list:

GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC REPORT

* Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
* ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
* Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
* Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
* GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
* Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
* Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
* Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07


Sponsored IT training links:
Join 310-065 online training to pass NS0-154 exam in easy and fast way. Just download the JN0-202 dumps, study it and pass the real test on first try.


About these ads

187 thoughts on “Gate du Jour – Now it’s Greenpeace reports in the IPCC AR4

  1. Ah…. hmmmm…. but….

    Excepting this(these) 1 (2),(3),(4),(5),(6)….. error (errors) the rest of the report is completely sound.

    So…..

    Keep giving us dosh from the public purse.

    Hey….. what’s the matter with you….?

    We’re Scientists!!!!!!

  2. In 5th grade my daughter did a report on the rain forest. I’m wondering now if it’s also cited by the IPCC.

  3. Using their own rules to describe a “scientist” we can say there are millions of “scientists” who dispute the AGW thesis. I’m sick of the IPCC using administrators, editors, bureaucrats, pencil pushers, etc. as “scientists”. I thought it was discovered last year that the actual number of real scientists who reviewed the relevant section of the IPCC 4 report was around 60, and most of them made comments saying they disagreed with the findings.

  4. I am sceptical of AGW and I post regular at Richard Black’s blog at the BBC. When I post I often point to articles here, at CA and other sceptical sites, sometimes even pointing to articles at The Daily Mail!

    I say to other posters, please read the article before stating things like “HA! That’s from WUWT, a well known sceptic site and is therefore irrelevant” (the same same people will then point to RC and claim it’s a good source!), my reply is always to ignore the source and comment on the information.

    Are we sure these articles, originally printed in the Greenpeace literature are not peer reviewed, publish and actually have merit?

    JMHO

    /Mango

  5. Does EPA have a hope in hell of surviving its rushed endangerment finding given all these revelations?

    I wonder if Vegas is giving odds?

  6. I did chance to read the energy supply chapter that references the Greenpeace figures for installed solar power estimates. Citing activist publications may be the least of the problems with this chapter. I noted that a number of negatives were discussed with regard to nuclear power, including waste, hydrocarbon use in mining, accidents and the threat of terrorism. The section on photovoltaic technologies on the other hand contained no mention of the four tonnes of carbon tetrachloride waste produced when creating 1 tonne of polycrystalline silicon. I believe it is an eco-crime that any hard copy of this biased drivel was ever printed.

  7. Gary Hladik says:
    January 29, 2010 at 12:28 am
    In 5th grade my daughter did a report on the rain forest. I’m wondering now if it’s also cited by the IPCC.

    Good news Gary. The IPCC have just offered your daughter the soon to be vacant post of IPCC Chairperson. They cite her in depth knowledge of environmental topics as ample qualification for the post.

  8. I had a look at Section 6.4.1.5 on Coral reefs and found these other references in the Coral Reefs section. Are they all Greenpeace too?

    Gardner et al., 2003
    McWilliams et al., 2005
    Hughes et al., 2003
    Douglas, 2003
    Lesser, 2004
    Sheppard, 2003
    Donner et al., 2005
    Kleypas and Langdon, 2002
    Meehl et al., 2007
    LeClerq et al., 2002
    Guinotte et al., 2003
    Lough and Barnes, 2000
    Sheppard et al., 2005
    Hallock, 2005
    Buddemeier et al., 2004
    Hayne and Chappell, 2001
    Nott and Hayne, 2001
    Precht and Aronson, 2004
    Riegl, 2003
    Ayre and Hughes, 2004
    Woodroffe et al., 2005
    Woodroffe and Morrison, 2001
    Dickinson, 2004
    Barnett and Adger, 2003

  9. First WWF, now Greenpeace. Perhaps that is what was meant in the leaked emails when it was suggested to change the meaning of peer reviewed.

  10. You’ve got to be friggin kidding me — and I assure you I don’t mean to use the word “friggin” — Greanpeace?

  11. Hmmmm! Now, am I just being Mr Cynical here but why would a rabidly Marxist Socialist organisation like Greenpeace allow it’s papers to be cited in a hallowed (or should that read hollowed) UN IPCC document report? Or are some of the same people who wrote the papers in the IPCC? No, surely not, the UN IPCC is a completely independent scientific body established by global governments, its work is done by 2,500 scientists, reports are done by 400 lead authors, assisted by 850 co-authors, reviewed line by line by 140 governments & their specialists, etc. They missed the fact that the meltic Himalayan glacias was wrong. They missed the fact that there was no eviedence of an increase in hurricane activity. They missed the bit about no link to adverse weather pattern increases. They aren’t that smart where I am looking from!

    Clearly nobody actually read anything in the reports or these loons should have spotted something. It’s crap!

  12. MangoChutney (00:29:57) :

    Are we sure these articles, originally printed in the Greenpeace literature are not peer reviewed, publish and actually have merit?

    Methinks Greenpeace publishing studies in their own publications pretty much rules out “proper” peer-review…whatever that may be these days.

  13. Couple of questions:

    1. Why has it taken so long to dig these references out – didn’t anyone screen this report?

    2. Am I alone amongst skeptics in wanting to keep an arm’s length from creepy advocacy groups like this?

    http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/

    Just as Greenpeace and the WWF casts questions on the credibility of the IPCC so does having far right-wing cranks roll out the barrel on our behalf.

    Until we tell them “thanks, but no thanks” they’ll continue to pull us down with them.

    The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.

  14. If you wanted to railroad this stuff into publication, clearly a Railway Engineer was a good choice to lead the charge.

  15. MangoChutney:

    Are we sure these articles, originally printed in the Greenpeace literature are not peer reviewed, publish and actually have merit?

    As for me, I don’t even have any confidence in anything “Nature” publishes, much less anything Greenpeace would write and have published. The point is that, 1] “peer review” is not what it has been cracked up to be by the ippc and its elite Climate Scientists, where peer review has been specifically shown severely wanting, and Greenpeace has otherwise shown its colors now for some time in many informal instances. And, 2] Since nearly everything ballyhooed by the ipcc concerning AGW’s or CO2’s destructiveness has been shown to be wrong, why bother chasing around Greenpeace papers? The AGW issue’s credibility is moot or about dead anyway, even if people are still holding out politically or “religiously” that it’s not.

    But since you’re worried about it, why don’t you check out what Greenpeace says about coral reef degradation compared to Willis Eschenbach’s possibly related “Floating Island” analysis right here at WUWT? Willis also has a related paper published in “Energy & Environment” which he lists in his references. Or maybe Willis knows something about what Greenpeace is saying as the one reference for the ipcc’s claim about coral reef degradation? You probably could even ask him on the “Floating Island” thread here.

  16. Konrad,
    Another item that is the by-product of Silicon PV cells is Nitrogen Tri-Fluoride NF3,
    besides being a poisonous substance it is supposed to be 17,000 more effective GHG than CO2 (is supposed to be).
    It is the result of the laser etching process that forms the PV cell from the raw poly-crystalline wafer.
    A link to what appears to be an authoritive site :

    http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/nitrogen-trifluoride-as-an-anthropogenic-greenhouse-forcing-gas/

  17. General question. How long can an organization like the IPCC continue to function at all with all these revelations coming almost daily of mistakes, misinformation, breaking their own rules, etc.? If the IPCC was a commercial entity the directors would be in court by now fighting for their own survival.

  18. John Hooper (01:16:22) :

    Couple of questions:

    1. Why has it taken so long to dig these references out – didn’t anyone screen this report?

    2. Am I alone amongst skeptics in wanting to keep an arm’s length from creepy advocacy groups like this?

    http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/

    On question #1, I’d say it’s because most of the attention has been focused on the “hard” science in WG1, rather than the more speculative WG2 and WG3. WG1 seems free of Greenpeace and WWF references, these seem to fall exclusively in WG2 and WG3.

    Now the interesting conundrum is that the Warmistas are always saying that Energy and Environment and Geophysical Research Letters are not “peer-reviewed” or “proper” peer-reviewed and of course we can’t trust them, yet they are both cited extensively by WG1.

    Given how BIG AR4 is, I rather doubt that anyone can honestly say they’ve gone through it thoroughly and checked all the references. We were supposed to be able to trust the IPCC to do an honest job.

    Given Pachauri’s recent admission in an interview with Science, 29 Jan 2010, Vol 327, page 510, that he views his role as advancing climate change policy, we shouldn’t be surprised now that AR4 is clearly an advocacy-based report vs objective science report.

  19. Hi all.
    Hey vibenna, guess what I,m a skeptic, and your dead right as too the IPCC having references other than Greenpeace.
    For all the other skeptics here posting on WUWT (I hope the deniers are in the minority) section 6.4.1.5 on Marine enviroments and Coral reefs have plenty of qualified scientific references. I read from a few blogs and take nothing on face value.
    I personally can get a laugh from some entries, however a lot of folk here seem to be gloating.
    Be what you are. I am not validating the section in focus, as from a quick look its full of alarmism hype. I,ve no time for that. Theres a lot of folk lapping up the end of the world sinearios.
    The natural world is full of interactions, course and effect.
    This is a great site and theres plenty of healthy skeptics here.
    Thanks Mr Watts.

  20. Gee, I wonder if the IPCC used reports from ExxonMobil to balance it all out.
    Clearly the IPCC is an advocacy group in a coalition with kook tree-huggers.

  21. John Hooper,

    I like your style, I really do

    But that page is dated today.

    Didn’t you read the date stamp and your orgs signature, pretty basic creation.

    P.I.S.S. O.F.F.

    Mods must be having a beer.

  22. Started off as a trickle, now it’s a tropical downpour.

    Climate Witness in Fiji: developing a generalizable method for assessing vulnerability and adaptation of mangroves and associated ecosystems
    Francis Areki and Monifa Fiu
    WWF Fiji Country Programme, 4 Maafu Street, Suva. Private Mail Bag, GPO, Suva, Fiji.
    Tel: (679) 3315533 Fax: (679) 3315410
    Email: fareki@wwfpacific.org.fj, mfiu@wwfpacific.org.fj

    ABSTRACT
    Climate change (CC) and its impacts are gaining momentum
    which threatens the integrity and security of Pacific Island nations’
    natural ecosystems, economies and way of life that is intricately woven
    into the ocean, forests and the land.

    The above is from an IPCC sponsored meeting in Denarau Island Nadi, Fiji
    20-22 June 2007

    The paper is titled IPCC TGICA Expert Meeting Integrating Analysis of Regional Climate Change and Response Options Meeting Report. You can get the pdf version from the IPCC site 280 pages.

    Does the above help you vibenna (00:48:45) :?

  23. Gary Hladik (00:28:44) :

    “In 5th grade my daughter did a report on the rain forest. I’m wondering now if it’s also cited by the IPCC.”

    If her teacher was a member of Greenpeace or WWF it probably was!

  24. MangoChutney (00:29:57) :

    “…Are we sure these articles, originally printed in the Greenpeace literature are not peer reviewed, publish and actually have merit?”

    If the information was published and peer reviewed then the original article in a scientific journal should be cited. The only reason to use Greenpeace literature instead of an original article is to make sure the information has an alarmist twist as was shown in tracing back the information on “40% of the Amazon rain forests” http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/corruption-of-science.html

    Money not science is behind the choices made on what was included in the IPCC report. Mosher’s analysis shows that clearly. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/mosher-the-hackers/

  25. “Gary Hladik (00:28:44) :

    In 5th grade my daughter did a report on the rain forest. I’m wondering now if it’s also cited by the IPCC”

    Only if you get her 5th grade friends to peer review it.

  26. OT, but I attended the tour presentation by Lord Monkton at the Irish Club in Brisbane (Australia) this afternoon. He was ably supported by Prof Ian Plimer and the moderator was Prof Bob Carter. I did a rough head count of about 1,000, all paying $20 a head, and not a dissenting voice in the crowd. All were rousingly applauded.

  27. vibenna (00:48:45) made a good point there.
    “In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” ”
    For gods shake, that section is “6.4.2.6 Recreation and tourism”, seems to me just by the section name that it might not be very scientific at all.
    On the other hand I’m sure that divers could be a lot of stress for coral, maybe warm waters attracts more divers that stress coral? I’m thinking about appliying for funds to study this issue…

  28. Alan the Brit (01:12:45) :

    “Hmmmm! Now, am I just being Mr Cynical here but why would a rabidly Marxist Socialist organisation like Greenpeace allow it’s papers to be cited in a hallowed (or should that read hollowed) UN IPCC document report? ….”

    You are aware that Greenpeace was a UN NGO are you not? http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040402_20030611_Riggs.pdf

  29. As I have commented before, how is it that the Glaciergate claims got into AR4 based on the report of an ADVOCACY group, WWF, when Hasnain’s 2035 claims had been shown to be a myth and a fiction in a PEER REVIEWED article in 2005 by one of the most qualified experts on Himalayan mountains, Prof. Jack Ives? Ives earlier exploded the myth in 2004 in a book, in reference to the Times article where Hasnain had repeated the figure at a conference in Birmingham in 2003. It can only have been deliberate CHOICE to ignore Ives’ devastating exposure and include WWF disinformation in AR4.

    See here

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down/

  30. John Hooper (01:16:22) : 2. Am I alone amongst skeptics in wanting to keep an arm’s length from creepy advocacy groups like this?
    As an AWG sceptic, John, I feel this one small segment of the Heartland Institute is upholding the right to question. This is important in our overall freedoms, and essential to all progress. Consider: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” To brand them a “creepy advocacy group” is demeaning; not least to we sceptics.

    Overview: Tobacco and Freedom (The Heartland Institute)
    “Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit. But today’s taxes and bans go far beyond a reasonable public policy response to a public health problem. Bast asks for a reasoned debate that respects the rights of smokers and the owners of bars and restaurants.”

    This Institute is a considerable force in debunking the fallacy of AGW. They have balance.

    (And I plead to not drinking eight glasses of water a day; and of being a heavy tobacco smoker for over half a century.)

  31. Naturally, the IPCC would want to use Greenpeace reports. The EU has always lined itself up as a world leader in AGW matters. It needs “proof” and that proof is found in the IPCC reports (the IPCC funded in large part by EU) containing papers from Greenpeace (also largely funded by EU) and so round and round the party goes, each rotation adding more hysteria. A large brake needs to be applied and I applaud all your attempts to be part of that brake.

    Watching Question Time on the BBC last night which had Lord Lawson as one of the panellists, it was amusing to see Blair/Brown stooge, “little” Ben Bradshaw shaking his head at everything Lawson was saying and when it was his turn to speak, trotted out the usual rubbish about the IPCC being a concensus of all the scientists in the world and how they cannot all be wrong. It was depressing to watch this completely blinkered attitude but I guess the scary thing for all these politicians is a) to admit that there might be a case to answer and, more importantly, b) how to stop the juggernaut they have already created in feeding the AGW cause and the economic implications thereof. Lawson touched on the huge cost of this to the taxpayer – it is now costing taxpayers and consumers over £1b p.a. in subsiding green energy in the UK, a huge amount, but compared with the money tied up in continuing to promulgate AGW especially in carbon trading schemes (or is that spelt scams?), it is mere drop in the (rising) ocean.

    That is what worries me – how than this be reversed?

  32. Don’t gloat and don’t be so sure that it (AGW panic hype action) is on the way out. Many many people have comitted to an opinion about it, and it is very difficult to get a change of view, especially where there is emotional investment (and financial, political, etc).
    Like a cat gone up a tree after a bird now flown, they don’t know how to get down.
    Case in point, a bit OT sorry, the UK Chief Scientist has called for more openness but in the explicit context that there is AGW, no question of same. Non- scientists feel they have little option but to trust in such ex cathedra statements.
    Sceptics need an organised and calmly expressed story about the facts, with any emotion reserved for concluding statements about missallocation of resources, sadness about the distorting effect of “group think” and “climate advocacy ” on the Science, and concern that personal agenda’s have pushed some skilled men and women into error.
    Anyway, keep up the revelations, we can now add Greenpeace inspired polemic to WWF reports, misquoting of effects, glaciers melting not, sea rising fast not, warming, if any, not happening at present, bad data, bad models, poor physics and ignoring of main natural factors (Sun, orbital variations, cosmic rays via cloud cover, ocean heating and cooling cycles, volcanoes, soots, aerosols, etc)

  33. Capn Jack (02:26:51) :

    John Hooper,

    I like your style, I really do

    But that page is dated today.

    Didn’t you read the date stamp and your orgs signature, pretty basic creation.

    P.I.S.S. O.F.F.

    Mods must be having a beer.

    Clearly it is you who’ve had one too many. John Hooper offered no dates. I did, in response to his comment. If you have an issue with Science publishing something with today’s date on it, you need to take it up with them. I cited the referrence correctly.

    Rather making asinine comments, you could simply go to their web site at http://www.sciencemag.org and look up the Vol number (327) (the current volume) which you will find has a publication date of 29 January 2010.

    The full link to the article is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510
    The reference header of the piece reads:

    Science 29 January 2010:
    Vol. 327. no. 5965, pp. 510 – 511
    DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5965.510

    Any more stupid comments?

  34. Mango Chutney.

    It wouldn’t make a lot of difference if these “papers” were “peer-reviewed”. As climategate e-mails show, the “peer-review” process has been corrupted; to the point that only politically acceptable articles are even considered for peer-review.

  35. Reality Check (03:48:21) : Remember the site all the AGW sycophants keep quoting … run by a cartoonist who fails to mention it on his main web site.

    Check further, Reality, he and his wife operate a business designing websites… like for a living… aka “day job”. I do not think they do judgemental frowns and growls; nor should they.

  36. “In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” (see Hoegh-Guldberg below).”

    Not that I’m surprised, but Laframboise is completely wrong here. The Greenpeace study by Hoegh-Guldberg (whose written many peer-reviewed paper on coral reef degradation – look it up) is cited as a reference for this sentence ” Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation”. So, unlike Laframboise’s claims, the Greenpeace study is being cited for claims about coastal tourism (not coral reef degradation) which, surprise, surprise, is what that Greenpeace study is actually about.

    I await her correction.

  37. P Gosselin (02:19:26) :

    Gee, I wonder if the IPCC used reports from ExxonMobil to balance it all out.

    I thought that very thing earlier today and searched about half the chapters in WG1, and several in WG2 and WG3. Didn’t find any ExxonMobil references for balance, though WG1 DOES reference McKitrick and McIntyre.

    See the link to current Science interview with Pachauri in my previous comment at:

    JLKrueger (04:05:02) :

    Pachauri openly admits that the IPCC is an advocacy organization, hence any thought of objectivity on the part of the IPCC should be discarded.

    It should not surprise that advocacy organization IPCC would use advocacy press WWF and Greenpeace to push their climate change policy agenda.

    They are now well and truly “outed.”

  38. Considering the serial mis-representation of the IPCC report, why can’t a class action suit representing all anti-AGW bloggers be started?

    As far as I know, the UN can’t lie to us and be immune from prosecution.

  39. It start off innocently. They join Greenpeece, the excalate toWWF and eventualluy ELF and full blown eco terrorism.

    When Romm wears out the label anti-science, this is anti science. Of course the sloppy way to associate to credibility is to add footnotes and references.

  40. New analysis of Boxer-Kerry bill S.1733 by the Heritage foundation is signficantly higher and more detailed than the EPA estimate: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2365.cfm
    ——————————————————–
    Partial Excerpt:

    If the CO2 caps proposed in S. 1733 are enacted, Americans can expect to see the following impacts relative to the baseline case (all dollar values are adjusted for inflation to the 2009 price level):

    * GDP will drop by an aggregate $9.9 trillion between 2012 and 2035. On a family-of-four basis, this translates to an income loss of over $108,000–a loss of over $4,500 per year.
    * In 2014, employment will drop 365,000 jobs below the expected level and will not recover for the period analyzed. For the entire period analyzed, employment will average 1.4 million jobs below the no-legislation level. In some years, the employment deficit will exceed 2.5 million jobs.
    * Household net worth will take continual hits. For the average year, it will be $2.1 trillion below baseline. On a family-of-four basis, the cumulative loss in net worth will exceed $40,000 by 2030.
    * Gasoline prices will rise by 45 percent.
    * Residential electricity prices will rise by 72 percent.
    * Relative to the baseline, the higher prices will force families to cut gasoline consumption by more than 12 percent, natural gas consumption by 23 percent, and electricity consumption by 29 percent. But these cuts will not be enough to offset the higher prices completely, and a family of four will see its total energy spending rise by more than $1,000 per year by 2035–a total increase in energy expenditure of more than $16,000 between 2012 and 2035.

    Conclusion

    The cuts in CO2 emissions outlined in S. 1733 are severe, reaching 83 percent below the 2005 level in 2050. In turn, these caps force severe reductions in energy use and economic activity. This analysis ends in 2035, at which point the caps on emissions are 52 percent below the emissions of 2005.

    In spite of the best attempts by households and businesses to adjust to these caps, the ensuing higher energy costs impose extraordinary losses on the economy. Income losses total to nearly $10 trillion and job losses exceed 2.5 million.

    By 2035, the next generation of families can expect to suffer a loss in net worth of $30,000 to $40,000; income losses exceeding $8,000 per year; energy cost increases of over $1,000 annually; and ashare of the national debt that will have risen by more than $27,000.

    All of these costs plus the additional costs for the years beyond our analysis will moderate world average temperatures by no more than nine hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than three tenths of a degree in 2100.

  41. “The climate bible”

    If that is how they frame it, it is a religion. The IPCC report has a lot of falsehoods. Must be a false religion. It of course admits to false prophesies now. Glaciers gone by 2035

  42. William Gray (02:16:53) :
    “Hi all.
    Hey vibenna, guess what I,m a skeptic, and your dead right as too the IPCC having references other than Greenpeace.
    For all the other skeptics here posting on WUWT (I hope the deniers are in the minority) section 6.4.1.5 on Marine enviroments and Coral reefs have plenty of qualified scientific references.”

    William, this is my field.
    Those papers are just as buggered up.

  43. Bridget-HS

    Watching Question Time last night, I was struck by the almost silent reception that Lord Lawson’s comments received. Whilst a substantial number of people in the UK are apparently unconvinced by the AGW case, the warmists have managed to embed serious doubts into the minds of a considerable majority of the public, many of whom think it may be “better to be safe than sorry” -at almost whatever the cost. There is still a huge mountain to climb to get a proper open-minded and honest public debate on the issues.

  44. I think it’s OK to cite gray literature, as long as it merely fills in the gaps or adds supporting evidence to what is already well established. As long as too much reliance isn’t placed on it, it can be a useful supplement. But it shouldn’t be the only or the major source cited, and any “far out” claims it makes should be presented carefully. E.g., the AR should handle it with tongs by bracketing it with distancing words like, “One article in the gray literature even states …”
    ——-

    David Harrington (01:49:47) :

    I fail to be surprised by any new revelation now.

    Don’t be too certain. If alarmism continues to unravel for a year or so, and it becomes clear that it is a lost cause, some really startling stuff may emerge from low-level insiders.

  45. William Gray (02:16:53) :

    William-

    In the interest of full disclosure, I am a proud denier of a theory that was decided upon decades ago by a small group of politicians and social justice advocates and has ever since sought to use bogus “science” to bolster that theory. Every single day, yet another piece of that science is proven to be based on lies, manipulated date and advocacy group fairy tales. The simple fact that advocates of this theory have used bullying, lies and subterfuge to try and ram this “science” into accepted gospel should give any sane person pause.

    AGW has never been about science. It is a socio-political agenda that used willing scientists and fellow travelers to fortify that agenda. The same people who have been driving this agenda since before the original Stockholm conference are still behind it, still packing the IPCC and NGO’s like Greenpeace and WWF with their cronies to create the patina of consensus and are still the same far left politicians they’ve always been. If people would spend half the time they have looking into the science of AGW looking into the background of this movement it would have been obvious to all long ago. AGW science is a symptom, not the disease and while I am all for treating the symptoms, this won’t end until the disease is killed.

    AGW is a scam, always has been a scam, and I am proud to deny it.

  46. @ John Hooper (01:16:22) No you aren’t alone in being sceptical about the intentions of some of the people and organisations trying to lead the sceptics. Its common practice for those in power to want to control both sides but I think people are now wise to it. Its common sense to be suspicious really if dodgy groups funded by oil, tobaco companies and mainstream media (who can’t exactly be trusted) are trying to take the lead. They could well be controlled opposition.

    What i think is, support them (but not exclusively) as long as they are going where you want to them to go and then drop them as soon as they diverge or hold back. If they are supported exclusively then there will be little organised opposition left when they do diverge. People should bear in mind that the British secret services have been recruiting from Oxford and Cambridge Universities for many years and putting their people in the media.

    Of course this doesn’t mean that you can’t trust anyone from Oxford or Cambridge but if you are faced with an oil company connected wannabe leader who has had training in journalism, was or is linked to a main political party or to governement and is a Oxford or Cambridge graduate then its not unreasonable to not trust such a person to have too much control and influence.

  47. You have to give credit to Donna Laframboise
    for listing the IPCC suppliers of “science”
    GREENPEACE-generated literature in 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC report
    •Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
    •ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
    •Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
    •Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
    •GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
    •Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
    •Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
    •Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07..

    More dodgy citations in the Nobel-winning climate report (WWF-generated literature)
    >> Time magazine’s controversial glacier expert
    >> Green time capsule: 1970 eco ideas not pretty
    >> Climate psychics: 10-year-old UK snow prediction fails miserably

    Created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by Nobel-winning IPCC report:>/b>
    •Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
    •Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
    •Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
    •Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
    •Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as “Allianz” above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
    •Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
    •Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.
    •Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
    •http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm
    •Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
    •Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
    •Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
    •WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
    •WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
    •WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
    •Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland

    Donna says:
    “I’ve only spent a few hours tracking these down, so there may be more.”

    Check out Donna’s website here:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/

  48. vibenna,

    There is more to political climatology than merely having a WWF or Greenpeace patch sewn onto your duffel bag or monthly contributions to the same. As an example here’s Professor Neil Adger’s own “Research Interests” as posted on his page at the University of East Anglia:

    “Social and ecological resilience; ecological economics; institutional economics; participatory decision-making; climate change adaptation, vulnerability, equity and justice.”

    Just a guess but he’ll NEVER be a skeptic, science be damned. Just another guess, your listing is full of others in this very same camp. Sure is a small circle given the total number of research scientists in the same fields across this globe of ours. I wonder if they know each other by sight, sound and hand shake?

  49. I’ve often commented to AGW’ers that “You learned everything you know about climate from An Inconvenient Truth, and everything you know about dinosaurs from The Land Before Time.”

    Maybe I haven’t been that far off!?!

    A co-worker” daughter just got dressed down in front of her entire science class in high school by a “science” teacher who was offended that she questioned global warming. He pointed out that the science is settle.

    Isn’t “science is settled” an oxymoron?

  50. P Gosselin (02:19:26) :
    “Gee, I wonder if the IPCC used reports from ExxonMobil to balance it all out.
    Clearly the IPCC is an advocacy group in a coalition with kook tree-huggers.”

    This is only the list of peer reviewers for WG3, but you’ll see Exxon show up a number of times: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/453.htm

  51. I have a feeling that compliant climate scientists are even now churning out study upon peer reviewed study to prop up every single outrageous paper from Greenpeace and WWF…. Just watch… It’s already happening… If we don’t kill the IPCC and the UN soon, AR5 will be the perfect screed with every citation backed up by well oiled peers….

  52. It’s funny how the ad-words adverts on WUWT are usually for lowering carbon emmission etc… :-). [I know it is because of the way that ad-words works, but it is funny. I wonder if neo-Nazi sites get adverts for visits to a Kibutz or something!]

  53. Lord Monkton interview with Greenpeace apologist. She refused to check data but insists Greenpeace do it for her.

    Romm, Hansen, Mannn and a few other apologists rail against climatologists and meterologists but praise Greenpeace with is even many times more innadequate.

  54. Jeff T:

    Another item that is the by-product of Silicon PV cells is Nitrogen Tri-Fluoride NF3,
    besides being a poisonous substance it is supposed to be 17,000 more effective GHG than CO2 (is supposed to be).

    Of course what people fail to recognize is that the amount of NF3 that makes it into the atmosphere is extremely small (<1 ppmv of NF3 produced). It is almost entirely consumed in the etching process. As far as being poisonous, well it's not so much toxic as it is highly corrosive. Get it on your hand and it will eat through it in a matter of minutes unless you put a special calcium rich lotion on it that neutralizes it. Imagine what that would do to your lungs.

  55. LMAO……So this is probably why the AGW crowd went out and got a different advocate. We all know it is the western developed nations creating all of warming out there. The bastion of truth and science is now telling us who is really to blame. Bin Laden Blames U.S. for Global Warming in New Tape!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584249,00.html

    Perhaps UBL will be in the next IPCC report.

  56. http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

    “Concerned about the speed of global warming?
    About food, water and energy scarcity – the effects of overpopulation on a plundered planet?
    About the UK’s failure to stabilise its own population?

    Support the Optimum Population Trust
    Support research into optimum population sizes
    Campaign for a lower population in the UK.

    Read the report: Fewer emitters, lower emissions, less cost by Thomas Wire.”

  57. From the “You have got to be kidding me” dept.:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584249,00.html

    CAIRO — Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.

    In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

    Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants.

    Seriously, this news report screams for it’s own thread.
    I have no doubts about what Bin Laden would like see happen to freedom and prosperity in America.
    I just never thought I would see the day Climate Change alarmism and a terrorist mouthpiece would both be on the same page.

  58. You guys are just making alot of noise for the sake of it. It really discredits you

    Here is the author’s bio for the main Greenpeace “generated” report:

    Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is a professor at the University of Queensland. He is a leading coral biologist whose study focuses on the impact of global warming and climate change on coral reefs eg coral bleaching. As of October 5, 2009, he had published 236 journal articles, 18 book chapters and been cited 3,373 times.

    Note that this report is published by Greenpeace–but not wriiten by Greenpece staff.

  59. There ought to be some kind of research tool for the entire AGW/CC/IPCC/EPA/Cap&Trade/ business, like there is for used cars – CARFAX. Maybe CARBFAX?

  60. A few commenters are pointing out (a) that there are SOME genuine peer-reviewed scientific articles cited in the IPCC material on coral reefs and (b) one should deal with information, not dismiss it because of the source.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the basic thought on both counts, but let’s be clear:

    (a) The IPCC’s mandate is to produce policy-relevant summaries of the best possible science using ONLY information appearing in peer-reviewed scientific literature. So regardless of how many genuine sources are used, these pieces cited throughout makes the whole IPCC process suspect as an exercise in bait-and-switch. It is not what it is sold as being, and borders on all-out fraud.

    and (b) I agree that one should play the ball, not the player. But that is precisely what skeptical sites like WAWT, Audit, etc. are doing, as a whole. Yet they keep getting dismissed out of hand by “insiders” who can’t even properly represent what the skeptical arguments are — it’s not that they aren’t playing the ball, they have no idea where the ball is! But the nature of the debate has been the skeptical side publicizing good summaries of known science like Eschenbach’s recent piece here on coral reefs that show the emperor has no clothes, and the only coherent response we get from alarmists is that “Kajillions of scientists disagree so you must be wrong”. But when the kajillions of scientists turn out not to be scientists at all, and there is no counterbalancing science, only advocacy, with which to respond, then at some point you’ve got to blow the whistle and say “Okay, this is no response to the skeptical side” and send someone to the penalty box.

    I’ve no problem giving a full hearing to someone regardless of source, but I do not have infinite patience to hear out alarmism by organizations like Sea Shepherd, WWF and Greenpeace, who pull dangerous stunts on the high seas, break national and international laws, and the basic human rights of those they hope to marginalize, and whose record over many decades has been to produce vitriol that appears to flow quite independently of any scientific source. At some point you’ve got to say “okay, I’ve listened long enough, I no longer have time for your nonsense!” For me, that was decades ago for Greenpeace.

    If you’re interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call “denialists”, regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against “the consensus”. He commonly responds to his visitors’ assertions of fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about because they clearly aren’t scientists, and loudly touts his own PhD (he’s a software engineer doing climate modelling). But he has the temerity to chide his visitors “I only post comments I consider constructive and interesting…you should make an attempt to be polite…I am not censoring you, I am creating something I (and others) find interesting. That is…If you want to be rude, contentious or incoherent, there’s plenty of other internet for you to play in.”

    OT: Check out the faces of these three well-known Democrats, who appear to GET THE JOKE.

  61. When I was a kid my mum used to say, “Greens were good for you.” Didn’t thinks so then and certainly don’t think so now!

    It’s good to see the truth starting to uncover ever-more deception by the deliberately alarmist IPCC.

  62. “MJK (07:04:13) :

    You guys are just making alot of noise for the sake of it. It really discredits you”

    Sorry. We just love to stir up trouble for the AGW cult. Next we’ll compare Usama Bin Laden’s position about AGW to Hansen’s (as you might know, he is very fond of a book that recommends the destruction of civilization).

  63. MJK (07:04:13) :
    Perhaps you’re unaware, so I’ll try to bring you up to speed. The reason so much noise is being made is we were told the IPCC’s review of literature in the report was “robust”. That ALL of the science was “peer-reviewed” and “robustly” (snicker) verified. Further, a lot of literature put out by many people and organizations that are/was skeptical of the AGW theory was automatically discounted for either “they are a shill for ………” or “that paper was never peer-reviewed.” Well, it can’t be both ways. Either we discount all non-peer-reviewed papers or we don’t. If we are to allow Greenpeace publications into the IPCC report, shouldn’t we allow Exxon’s scientists to have a say? Or at least give them the same “ROBUST” scrutiny the WWF and Greenpeace get in their report submissions?

  64. slightly OT:Here’s a bit on Greenbacks,er Greenpeace’s PBY Catalina :

    http://www.flyingzonedirect.com/aircraftdirectory/warbirdsaircraftdirectory/catalina.htm

    It’s now in the hands of a museum.I had a picture in my old files with that thing parked
    at Malaga,Spain with no drip pans under the engines and slobbering oil allover the ramp.Also personal witness to the Rainbow warrior “sailing ” under power-using the
    “D-Sail” putting out an nice nasty cloud of unburned hydrocarbons…..
    Nothing from those folks makes me want to believe anything they say…

  65. MJK (07:04:13) :
    Note that this report is published by Greenpeace–but not wriiten by Greenpece staff.

    Like DUH!

    Gee, don’t think we coulda figured this one out without your help! Thanks for pointing it out.

    Piffle!

  66. I) just checked the IPCC 4 Report WGii References and also found:
    Munich Re, 2002: Winter Storms in Europe (II). Munich Re, Munich, 76 pp.
    Munich Re, 2004: Annual Review: Natural Catastrophes 2003. Munich Re, Munich, 60 pp.

    I didn’t know Munich Re was a scientific body.
    I do know they are insurers and support activists groups like German Watch

  67. R. Craigen (07:12:34) :
    “… let’s be clear:

    (a) The IPCC’s mandate is to produce policy-relevant summaries of the best possible science using ONLY information appearing in peer-reviewed scientific literature.”

    Sorry, you are repeating incorrect information. From the IPCC’s Procedures (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf): “[The IPCC will use] peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry”

  68. So, Mr/Ms vibenna gets pulled over, doing 100 in a fifty zone.”But look,” s/he says, “I stopped at the red light back there and signalled my left turn.”

  69. @ JLKrueger (04:05:02) :

    “…The full link to the article is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510

    That is for paid subscription. Anyone wanting to see the whole extended interview transcript for free, check it out here:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510/DC1

    Some highlights:

    Q: What is your stance on linking global warming with extreme events? Has IPCC made a blunder by suggesting the link?

    R.K.P.: No, we have not made a blunder, and we are going to issue a statement on that…in no way are we saying that this was a mistake. And we’ll issue a statement on that, so I really can’t say anything more on this subject at this point of time.

    Q: Some critics contend that while IPCC was projecting that it was doing great science, it is turning out to have done some sloppy work.

    R.K.P.: …We have placed before the world … a defining piece of work, which clearly tells you about the scientific reasons for climate change…The veracity, the honesty, the scrupulousness with which we carry out our assessment has been the hallmark of the IPCC…

    Q: The other issue that dogged IPCC is the leaked e-mails from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in Norwich, U.K.

    R.K.P.: Those e-mails represent nothing more than private communications, private airing of anguish, or anger, or emotion. It was indiscreet. But you know the people who worked on that report are outstanding individuals. They have spent years working on the science of climate change…

    Q: A statement from TERI lists the number of companies you are associated with, the money which has flowed back to you and the organization: €100,000 from Deutsche Bank, $80,000 from Toyota, and so forth. You don’t think this is conflict of interest?

    R.K.P.: Where is the conflict of interest?…

    Q: You have several positions. Some with the Climate Exchange, others with the Pegasus Fund. No, it’s not a question about receiving money. You’ve stated clearly that the money goes to TERI. Some people disagree; they believe that you have to be cleaner than Caesar’s wife.

    R.K.P.: Yeah, but Caesar was also murdered by Brutus, wasn’t he? Caesar was murdered by a group of people for their own interest, all right? So I cannot possibly be held accountable for all the lies that the media are writing about in a certain section of the U.K. press. I mean, if they are going to influence public opinion, I can assure you it is not going to last forever. I am absolutely convinced the truth will prevail in the end.

    Q: Do you think your lifeboat is leaking now?

    R.K.P.: No. I can tell you I have never felt stronger than I do now because I am convinced that what I have done is totally aboveboard, and I am also convinced that in the future I shall continue to do what I believe in. I can tell you I am a person, some of my critics have referred to me as a Hindu vegetarian. I can tell you I have a lot of spiritual strength inside, and they are not going to shake that, no matter what happens.

    Q: IPCC’s science has been questioned, your personal integrity, in a way, has also been questioned through this conflict-of-interest issue. In that light, how can you say that you will be in the best position to take the Assessment Report-5 forward?

    R.K.P.: Because I know that I am. Because I know that all this nonsense which is going on is ephemeral, it is temporary…these opinions by a few motivated individuals will be washed away. I have no doubt about it at all.

  70. R. Craigen (07:12:34) :

    (a) The IPCC’s mandate is to produce policy-relevant summaries of the best possible science using ONLY information appearing in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

    In AR4 the rules were loosened to allow supplementary use of “gray” literature.

  71. R. Craigen (07:12:34) :

    At some point you’ve got to say “okay, I’ve listened long enough, I no longer have time for your nonsense!” For me, that was decades ago for Greenpeace.

    That’s about it. As hyped by media, several years ago Greenpeace took a trip to the Arctic in Summer and was stunned to find there was so much liquid water up there. A Polar Bear supposedly wandered through their camp, ~ “as if to say ‘thank you’.” Right. Me, I’d be more likely to conclude the Polar Bear had already found that what Greenpeace offers is impossible to swallow.

  72. Gail Combs (03:24:56) :

    Alan the Brit (01:12:45) :

    “Hmmmm! Now, am I just being Mr Cynical here but why would a rabidly Marxist Socialist organisation like Greenpeace allow it’s papers to be cited in a hallowed (or should that read hollowed) UN IPCC document report? ….”

    You are aware that Greenpeace was a UN NGO are you not?

    No! I must confess my ignorance on that part, although I am not at all surprised to hear it. This AGW is nothing more than Marxist Socialism by the back door. They couldn’t seize the means of production using politics, they then collapsed at the fall of the Soviet Union, so they needed another stick to beat the western democracies with. They found that stick in Global Warming. Their tactics have been devised as follows:-

    “Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (…) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (…) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (…) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. …
    Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. ” An extract from a book called Meinkampf by some bloke called Adolf Hilter, I understand its circulation had dropped for a while, but over the last 20 years it has undergone something off a resurgance throughout the environmetal movement!

    I know it’s not National Socialism we’re dealing with, but the environemtalist extremists are not shy of borrowing tactics from the past!

  73. Hans Moleman (08:02:15) :

    “[The IPCC will use] peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry”

    Which by now seems to be a fair indication as to the quality of the ipcc’s Peer Reviewed sources, eh wot?

    So I’m still sticking with Dora The Explorer, thank you.

  74. UK Sceptic (01:00:16) :

    “At what point do Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck make their contribution?”

    Donal Duck has already made his contribution. A friend showed me a Donald Duck from 1952. In this issue he became “King of America” because he found “The Golden Helmet”.

    Being King of America he was asked by a lawyer (in the form of a giant rat) what he wanted to own.

    And Donald, that cunning duck, answered ; “I dont want to own anything, except the Air.”

    Whereupon he explained to the Lawyer ; “I can tax the air. I sigh for a dollar, a cough for a cent”

    We had a good laugh at Donald. Of course it didnt end well…

    So Donald was maybe the first contributor. Maybe he was the one planting the meme inside Al Gore’s brain already as a child?

  75. vibenna,

    you are right, there is peer reviewed literature: eg. the first name on your list: Gardner et al. , 2003

    Long-Term Region-Wide Declines in Caribbean Corals
    Toby A. Gardner,1,3 Isabelle M. Côté,1* Jennifer A. Gill,1,2,3 Alastair Grant,2 Andrew R. Watkinson1,2,3
    1 School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
    2 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
    3 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.

    Hmmm, UEA, Norwich, Centre for Climate Change Research? I am sorry, but the CRU under the same roof is no good recommendation and given the per Climategate now public corruption of the peer-process – what can we belive and what not? And another name I checked: Hughes, 2003: The Abstract consist of 3 sentences – here a two:

    “However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.”

    That is politics and not science. (Another paper in SCIENCE) Yes the will be distrust, distrust against persons, institutions and publishers. Not all suspicion is justified, but let us ask, who started the process of blackmailing scepticism.

    The UN-IPCC had the obligation to report about the pros and cons. It did not! And to rely heavily on agitprop groups like Greenpeace and WWF should tell everybody that the IPCC is no relyable basis for sound politics.

  76. sammy k (07:18:17) :

    where does “green-piece-of-blankety-blank” get its funding from?

    The organization does not accept any corporate sponsorships or funds from governments.

    Having said that, and not being privy to the actual income statements, It would not rule out donations from foundations or project funding from UN agencies.

  77. b.poli (09:27:35) :

    And another name I checked: Hughes, 2003: The Abstract consist of 3 sentences – here a two:

    “However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.”

    Yes, I wonder if the AGWers are able to admit that those two sentences are internally self-contradictory, with an unproven non-sequiter thrown in?

    Or is it instead all about the alleged “feelings” of the unwashed masses as referenced above by Alan the Brit (09:11:57), but which perhaps might better describe the thought processes of the brilliant AGW propagandists themselves – who seem to think by virture of the wonderous power of their own self-annointment that everyone but them is somewhat retarded – at least as a first approximation?

  78. JLKrueger (04:30:14) :

    “Didn’t find any ExxonMobil references for balance…”

    On the third day of the Copenhagen meeting ExxonMobil announced their largest acquisiton in the past 10 years.

    “Monday, December 14, 2009
    Exxon Mobil Corp. announced a $41-billion US deal to purchase natural gas company XTO Energy Inc. in an all-stock transaction Monday.
    The move is the latest play in Exxon’s plan to pick up valuable natural gas fields. XTO claims about 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.”

    http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/14/exxon-xto-natural-gas-takeover.html

    XTO is a LNG company. LNG produces less CO2 then Oil when used for transportation and base load electrical generation. Exxon wants a Carbon Tax to go through, they need the tax on coal to make LNG exploration and development more cost competitive. They bet $41,000,000,000.00 dollars on it!

    January 13, 2009:
    “Exxon Mobil wants Congress to forego the cap-and-trade law it is considering and implement a $20-per-ton “carbon tax” instead. It is the first clear call by the CEO for a price on carbon, writes CNNMoney.com.”

    http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/01/13/exxon-mobil-to-lawmakers-tax-carbon-dont-use-cap-and-trade/

    Exxon SUPPORTS AGW!
    I repeat
    Exxon SUPPORTS AGW!

    Don’t let the warmists tell you otherwise. The warmists don’t actually look at what is really happening, no surprise there.

  79. Andrew30 (10:01:51) :

    “REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? –A”

    OK.
    At the bottom of this page:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history

    From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
    It includes:

    British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
    The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
    Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
    UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
    Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
    Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
    Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
    Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
    KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’
    World Wildlife Fund, ‘Political Advocates’
    Greenpeace International, ‘Political Advocates’

    As Yogi Berra purportedly said: “You can see a lot just by looking”

  80. Re: “REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? -A”

    If you haven’t noticed yet, I think that the Climate Research Unit is nothing more then an influence laundering organization.

    They exist only as a conduit for ‘interested moneys’ fraudulent information to pass from the interested organization to the media. Each party in the chain, be it the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace International, Halcrow Consulting, Risk Management Solutions, the Climate Research Unit or the IPCC each take a cut of the money as they bless the fraudulent information and pass it along on its way to the media. The media simply makes money selling scary news. They all make some money, the ‘interested money’ stands to make the most; be it in profit, taxes or carbon trading fees.

    I think if we ever get a chance to look at the financial records of the CRU and investigate the upstream and downstream financial transactions, it will be clear to everyone.

  81. To those that run Watts Up With That,

    Do you agree with the conclusions drawn by Laframboise? I only ask in case you posted it here without fully checking out her facts. If the answer is “yes”, how do you respond to the following:

    1) Ms. Laframboise writes: “In one section of this Nobel-winning [IPCC] report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). “, but in actuality the report cites Greenpeace as a reference for this sentence: “Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000). ” which is referring to the potential economic impacts of coral reef degradation.

    Will you post a correction to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?

    2) Ms. Laframboise writes: “Here the [IPCC] report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).” which is misleading since the sentence actually reads: “Technical potential estimates for global CSP vary widely from 630 GWe installed by 2040 (Aringhoff et al., 2003) to 4700 GWe by 2030 (IEA, 2003h; Table 4.2).” Greenpeace does not establish a lower limit it provides a “potential estimate”. There is clearly a difference in meaning between Laframboise’s implication and the actual language used.

    Will you post a correction to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?

    3) Ms. Laframboise writes: “When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the [IPCC] report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence.” This is the sentence she refers to: “Estimates of current global installed peak capacity vary widely, including 2400 MW (Greenpeace, 2004); 3100 MW (Maycock, 2003); >4000MW generating more than 21 TWh (Martinot et al., 2005) and 5000 MW (Greenpeace, 2006). ” As you can see, Greenpeace is not used as a scientific reference as Laframboise implies, but instead as an example of the many different estimates of “current global installed peak capacity [of solar electricity]”.

    Will you post a clarification to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?

    4) Ms. Laframboise writes: ” Here [the IPCC] uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the “main wind-energy investments” are located globally (Wind).” She is referring to this sentence: “The main wind-energy investments have been in Europe, Japan, China, USA and India (Wind Force 12, 2005).” The source referenced here is actually a joint paper with credit shared between the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace. As you can see from the GWEC web page (http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=17), their members are from wind industry associations across the globe so it is unsurprising that they would be used as a reference with regards to the main-wind energy investments.

    Will you post a correction to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?

    I’m happy to continue investigation Ms. Laframboise’s writing for errors, but I would appreciate your comments on the above.

    [Reply: She has made her post, you have answered it. Readers can make up their own minds. ~dbs, mod.]

  82. JLKrueger (01:59:40) :

    John Hooper (01:16:22) :

    Couple of questions:

    2. Am I alone amongst skeptics in wanting to keep an arm’s length from creepy advocacy groups like this?

    * * * * *

    Here he has a link to Heartland Instiute which has sponsored 3 international conferences on climate change which has included speakers like Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Hon. Vaclav Klaus, Ph.D, (economics) who was president of the EU, Apollo 17 Astronaut, Jack Schmitt, Ph.D (geology), IPCC reviewer Dr. Bill Gray, CSU, etc. etc.

    Hardly creepy.

    I would highly recommend reading the paper of Dr. Lindzen, which exposed the foundation on which Climategate was built, long before it happened:

    http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf

  83. Greenpeace funds the CRU

    REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? -A

    I do.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

    >>This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

    British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International,……………………

  84. “She has made her post, you have answered it. Readers can make up their own minds. ~dbs, mod.”

    I was more curious as to whether you felt her post had merit after seeing the multiple errors and lies of omission it contains. This site is viewed as an authority by many and I think most people assume you’ve vetted the links you post on your blog. Do you typically post corrections to posts found to be in error?

  85. Hans Moleman (08:02:15) says:

    Sorry, you are repeating incorrect information. From the IPCC’s Procedures (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf): “[The IPCC will use] peer reviewed and internationally available scientific technical and socio-economic literature, manuscripts made available for IPCC review and selected non peer-reviewed literature produced by other relevant institutions including industry”

    Hmmm, interesting. So all the trolls who insist that peer-review is what ensures the quality of the “science” are speaking through an unusual orifice.

  86. A few other interesting funders on that list, United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Environmental Protection Agency and World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)

    Anybody else starting to see a pattern here?

  87. Hans Moleman (11:04:00) says:

    “She has made her post, you have answered it. Readers can make up their own minds. ~dbs, mod.”

    I was more curious as to whether you felt her post had merit after seeing the multiple errors and lies of omission it contains. This site is viewed as an authority by many and I think most people assume you’ve vetted the links you post on your blog. Do you typically post corrections to posts found to be in error?

    Can you point us to some cases where you have insisted that Real Climate, the CRU and assorted others post corrections to statements or posts that were in error?

  88. Re
    Hans Moleman (10:51:27) :
    1) Ms. Laframboise writes: “In one section of this Nobel-winning [IPCC] report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled “Pacific in Peril” (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). “, but in actuality the report cites Greenpeace as a reference for this sentence: “Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000). ” which is referring to the potential economic impacts of coral reef degradation.

    Have you actually read the Pacific in Peril report?

  89. Richard Sharpe (11:12:05) :

    “Hmmm, interesting. So all the trolls who insist that peer-review is what ensures the quality of the “science” are speaking through an unusual orifice.”

    No, all the trolls who insist a document only has merit if it’s peer-reviewed or that it doesn’t have merit if it’s not are.

    “Can you point us to some cases where you have insisted that Real Climate, the CRU and assorted others post corrections to statements or posts that were in error?”

    Nope. Does that make it any less wrong for Watts Up With That to stand behind a post riddled with so many problems?

    What is your stance on this post?

  90. Hans Moleman (11:04:00) :
    “Do you typically post corrections to posts found to be in error?”

    I think that would be a service that would be required by believers, skeptics on the other hand will check for themselves if something does not sound right or if they see two conflicting opinions.

    Perhaps that is why ‘realclimate.org’ censors the postings on their site; realclimate.org it is for believers, not independent critical thinkers, let alone skeptics.

  91. While I agree citing Greenpeace and the WWF is a problem, I just want to point out a factual inaccuracy in her post. Greenpeace is not “the sole source” cited for coral reef degradation even in the specific passage she cites. The passage is on how climate change will effect recreation and tourism and it briefly mentions damaged reefs as an example. The actual passage is below, and you can see there are three citations not just Greenpeace.

    “Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000). ”

    As you can see it references other sections of the IPCC report, which in term reference other sections of the IPCC report and dozens of peer reviewed studies on reef degradation. The case for reef degradation has virtually nothing to do with Greenpeace, though I do not completely agree with the IPCC opinion on the subject (I think they somewhat underestimate the adaptation hypothesis).

  92. Andrew30 (11:21:50) :

    “I think that [posting corrections to posts found to be in error] would be a service that would be required by believers, skeptics on the other hand will check for themselves if something does not sound right or if they see two conflicting opinions.”

    So does that mean you checked the above post for errors or that you let it slide because it sounded right to you?

    “Perhaps that is why ‘realclimate.org’ censors the postings on their site; realclimate.org it is for believers, not independent critical thinkers, let alone skeptics.”

    You seem to be wrong. Just checking their latest post (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/) shows plenty of dissenting opinion. I don’t see any evidence of censorship.

  93. I see other people have noticed what I pointed out as well. Perhaps a correction is in order? Greenpeace was not the “sole citation” at all – that’s a flat out lie by her. She implies the entire case for reef degradation is based on Greenpeace, when IPCC cites literally dozens of major scientific studies on the subject. Usually you all do a pretty good job but sometimes stuff like this gets through. This blog would be much more authoritative if things like this didn’t happen and could be the focal point for a much more impartial informed movement of climate skeptics and moderates. I really wish both sides of this debate would clean up their act and show some intellectual honesty for a change which Ms Laframboise clearly lacks. I’ve always been idealistic, but after the thousands of hours I have spent learning about this subject, it becomes difficult.

    REPLY: I’ll check t out -A

  94. Who elected Greenpeace? Who elected the WWF?

    These NGOs have no place in taxpayer funded scientific studies. They are entirely political organizations, intent on hijacking the process and diverting resources to their own ends. It is no different than having a fundamentalist religious sect heavily involved in the IPCC. The fact that the UN/IPCC even mentions Greenpeace is another stain on its already soiled reputation.

    And anyone who claims that realclimate does not censor skeptical comments is either ignorant or mendacious. There have been numerous posts here over the past few years by people stating that they were repeatedly censored by RC.

    Maybe someone at NASA/GISS is getting a little worried now that it has become evident that Schmidt, Mann and the gang have been misappropriating taxpayer funds by running their personal blog during working hours. And not for just a few hours a day, but all day, every day. It’s going to be hard to pretend they weren’t, since every comment is time/date stamped, and the internet never forgets.

  95. Andrew P (12:26:35) :

    Usually you all do a pretty good job but sometimes stuff like this gets through.

    In this debate, it is inevitable that mistakes are made. However, kudos go to the debaters that encourage insight and analysis like yours that help to get the truth out. if both sides were allowing this openness and review, this would not be much of a debate. However, it seems that those questioning AGW are the ones that promote constant review and criticism (when warranted), that ensure their data stays as pure as possible.

    I know I do appreciate it. Thank you for your vigilence.

  96. UK Sceptic (01:00:16) :

    At what point do Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck make their contribution?

    Here:

    My translation:
    1 Yes – I own the air! Without it no one can live
    2. All must wear an air-meter on the chest, and they shall pay me for every breath.
    3. You are a genius. 1 cent a breath! A sigh 2 cents. A gasp – 5 cents!
    So… you have the price list already?

  97. Smokey (12:56:27) :

    “And anyone who claims that realclimate does not censor skeptical comments is either ignorant or mendacious. There have been numerous posts here over the past few years by people stating that they were repeatedly censored by RC.”

    All I can look at is the evidence in front of me and there were a ton of dissenting comments in the post at Realclimate that I looked at, contrary to the claim I was responding to that said RC didn’t allow independent thinkers or skeptics to post.

    Almost every blog does some culling of their posts. Perhaps WUWT is an exception, but I know Climateaudit.org frequently removes posts they deem to be off-topic, angry, piling it on, etc. Without knowing the content of the alleged posts that were censored, it’s hard to say whether their removal by the RC mods was appropriate or not.

  98. Smokey (12:56:27) :Not even V.Putin could stop NGO’s from meddling in internal affairs, anything against them is considered against human rights.

  99. I mean I assume she says Greenpeace is the only citation because the other two citations were other sections of the IPCC report (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5). But those sections contain dozens of other independent citations. It’s just not honest of her to imply there’s no other evidence of coral degradation. The citing of the WWF is a big enough problem already.

    On a side note, I do a radio show on weather and climate, and this site has been of enormous help to me. My co-host and I feature content from here all the time. Definitely will be discussing the GISS extrapolation of coastal stations on my next show. I love this site and often plug it on air!

  100. Rajendra (choo choo) Pachauri. Toot the whistle on your gravy train a little louder.

    Keep Green peace on the band wagon and you may have a chance. They provide good pictures and emotional arguments.

  101. Hans Moleman (13:21:06) , RC allows dissenting posts it can answer. It censors posts that it can’t refute or presents good arguments that question AGW. Do you know who funds RC?

  102. Of course it’s peer-reviewed. The IPCC “scientists” and the activists from GreenPeace and WWF are peers.

  103. Richard M (14:21:36) :

    “RC allows dissenting posts it can answer. It censors posts that it can’t refute or presents good arguments that question AGW.”

    Where’s your evidence of this. In the post I linked to above there appears to be a lot of healthy debate.

    “Do you know who funds RC?”

    Fill me in.


  104. Hans Moleman (13:21:06) :

    All I can look at is the evidence in front of me and there were a ton of dissenting comments in the post at Realclimate that I looked at, contrary to the claim I was responding to that said RC didn’t allow independent thinkers or skeptics to post.

    Almost every blog does some culling of their posts. Perhaps WUWT is an exception, but I know Climateaudit.org frequently removes posts they deem to be off-topic, angry, piling it on, etc.

    Mild, MILD in comparison; the non-appearance of posts at RC are LEGENDARY …
    .
    .

  105. “Hans Moleman (12:20:50) :
    […]
    I don’t see any evidence of censorship.”

    What a funny statement to make. You mean, no blackened sentences?


  106. Hans Moleman (13:21:06) :

    All I can look at is the evidence in front of me

    Link: A telling omission by Real Climate

    Quote: “We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.

    It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. ”

    and:

    “Steve McIntyre started ClimateAudit on [Oct 26th 2004].”

    “RealClimate.org was registered November 19th, 2004″

    .
    .


  107. Gail Combs (04:13:36) :
    At this rate I think it is time to nominate the Nobel prize for the Darwin award: http://www.darwinawards.com Al Gore, Obama and the IPCC.

    Sorry, dear, they are unqualified (vis-a-vis ‘accidental removal’) for that nomination … I now quote the requirements for nomination from the very website you linked to:

    “The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of
    the human genome by honoring those who
    accidentally remove themselves from it …”

    .
    .

  108. >>It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group.

    It really amazes me that even though this climate cabal has been in place since Stockholm and the same far left people who started this ball in motion are still involved how few people seem to have connected the dots.

    Why is anyone surprised that NGO’s like Greenpeace or WWF are neck deep in this stuff? They have been a symbiotic beast of the UNEP and it’s spawn the IPCC since day 1. They have even been given insider status at the UN since Earth Summit +5 when they were given speaking rights at plenary sessions.

    I know this is a science blog and not a political blog but even a cursory review of the history of the Stockholm conference, the RIo Earth Summit, the involvement of NGO’s and groups like the UNEP, the IPCC, the World Bank, basically a who’s who of the AGW world would demonstrate that it is the same people with the same world view moving between groups which have no more paper thin separation.

    And yes, Fenton Communications fits right in:

    Global Warming: As early as the mid-80s, and at the 1997 Kyoto Global Warming Summit, we have worked with green NGOs and leaders including Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to mainstream the climate threat. More recently we have worked with 1Sky, Climate Counts and Step It Up to harness the public “tipping point” on the issue and inspire action.

    http://www.fenton.com/our-clients/environment/

    And yes, if you look at their client list you will also see Greenpeace, the IPCC and the UNEP.

  109. _Jim (14:54:53) :

    “Google can be your friend (Search: “RC censorship”)”

    Thanks, I’ll take a look.

    “Quote: “We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.”

    This post is anecdotal and gives no evidence of any censorship at RC.

    “It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. ””

    My company pays $13 through Hostgator.com for our web server. Are you suggesting that the climate scientists who post at Realclimate were bought for this price? Is there actually any evidence of their being funded by this Fenton group other than WHOIS info?

  110. Also, _Jim, what’s your take on the many errors and lies of omissions in post from Laframboise?

  111. “Max (02:10:17) :
    I think Lord Monckton summed up Greenpeace nicely in one interview. ”

    Danke Max! The lady in the video exemplifies very well the attitude of ordinary citizen in support of the AGW theory.
    I truly enjoyed watching this.

  112. Greenpeace’s executive director, Gerd Leipold interviewed on TV :

    “On July 15th, Greenpeace put out a press release saying the arctic ice caps would melt by 2030, a claim that Leipold now admits is false. Rather than own up, and say it was a mistake and he’d never let it happen again, he says Greenpeace is “a pressure group” that has to “emotionalize issues, and we’re not ashamed” of it.”

    Greenpeace are saying that they are perfectly justified in using lies and propaganda to achieve their aims. Putting it another way : No information from Greenpeace can be trusted.

    I am assuming their faithful followers were largely unaware of this and believed these lies as truth. I suspect most of them have integrity and will be very unhappy to have been used as pawns in a propaganda war. Greenpeace could end up with a war of its own!

    I had some sympathy with Greenpeace when they were a small pressure group highlighting different environmental issues, but now they have representatives in various parliaments and a wide influence globally they can NOT use outright lies, they must act responsibly. Support will dwindle away when voters and others realise they have been duped.

    I have long had problems with Greenpeace in their lack of joined up thinking. While often quick to say what can’t be done they do not have any sensible alternative proposals.

    For example, in the UK they are saying we should not have a new generation of nuclear power stations, full stop. They do not say ‘Look to develop thorium based reactors which have almost none of the problems of current nuclear reactors’.

    Another example from years ago when they successfully stopped the installation of an incinerator designed to burn PCBs as it might cause pollution [denied by the developers], without proposing an alternative way of disposing of PCBs.

    I would consider myself an environmentalist but would never think of joining Greenpeace, I live in the real world.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/greenpeaces-director-is-busted-for-lying-about-the-effects-of-global-warming-2009-8

    Interesting article on thorium reactors :

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/email/html/8746sci2.html

  113. Hans Moleman-

    You are missing a very simple yet key point. RealCimate.org was owned by a group called EMS or Environmental Media Services. EMS in turn was nothing more than a division of Fenton Communications. I would urge you to read the well documented book by Chris Horner, Red Hot Lies, if you have any doubts. Go here for a taste.

    http://tinyurl.com/yjd69p8

    If you don’t know who Fenton is you should do some independent research on them. It’s not hard. Try google.

    You can continue to hide your head in the sand and pretend this is the same thing as your company paying $13 a month for hosting services but that won’t make it true. Fenton has a long a dubious history of humping far left scare tactics like the great apple Alar scare which was as based in science as AGW.

    As a side note, I have also posted on RealClimate only to have my posts censored.

  114. Hans Moleman (15:48:42) :
    “Quote: “We’ve all pretty much had it … with the RC world view ”

    This post is anecdotal and gives no evidence of any censorship at RC.

    Idiot*; That is the intro(an excerpt) from the article I linked. Did you visit the link in that post that contains examples of RC censorship?

    * According to wikipedia:
    An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. More humorous synonyms of the term include addlehead, blockhead, bonehead, deadhead, dimwit, dodo, dope, dummy, dunderhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbskull, stupidhead, thickhead, and twit, among many others.

    .
    .


  115. JackStraw (16:23:54) :

    You are missing a very simple yet key point. RealCimate.org was owned by a group called …

    Don’t waste your time. I am certainly wasting no more of mine. Playing funny little semantic word-games just makes the *pig* happy … ignore and he’ll go away.

    .
    .

  116. What does W. W. Fund and Greenpeace has in common, but to give F-All about polar bears, oh heh just like the rain forests of the world, it’s like 90% goes to travel, lodging, salary, fuel, and propaganda crap.

  117. >>_Jim (16:39:43) :

    >> Don’t waste your time. I am certainly wasting no more of mine.

    Wise decision.

    I don’t mind having a rational discussion with someone who has a good faith argument but clearly that’s not the case here.

    Still, it’s fun to pound on the trolls who called us deniers for years as their religion turns to dust.

  118. Hans Moleman (12:20:50) : “I don’t see any evidence of censorship.”

    Reminded me of this guy:

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. :-)

  119. What a bunch of codswallop! The report was commissioned by Greenpeace but peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It was undertaken by recognized experts with extensive track records. By the way, I have also worked for Rio Tinto and many other organisations. So what. I don’t pick sides – I just get on with doing the science. This is what we call objectivity. Ever heard of it?

    Ove HG

  120. OveHG (18:34:42)
    ” by recognized experts with extensive track records”

    Who exactly?
    Names, titles, employers.

    Unless of course ” by recognized experts with extensive track records”, is just your option, you must have some facts.

    Backing up your statements with facts is called establishing credibility, “Ever heard of it?”

  121. Hey Anthony, concerning Anticlimactic’s post, did you do a post on that paper? Because I missed it; I’m curious to read as to why it was flawed.

    REPLY: I didn’t, but I think one of the other blogs did. – A

  122. I may have missed it, but in light of all this I am very surprised that more has not been made of the fact that the current UK Met Office chairman Robert Napier used to be Chief Exec of the UK branch of the WWF.

  123. Thanks for the link to the Greenpeace “Pacific in Peril” compendium – great stuff.

    Timmerman’s CV page at the IPRC lists a LOT of papers – almost makes one jealous! I note that the “Pacific in Peril” one is “refereed” – is that the same as peer-reviewed?

    Not that it matters for AR4 inclusion: since 2003, at least, IPCC procedures have specifically allowed for non-published or non-peer-reviewed sources (see here) like industry journals, working papers, proceedings of workshops, etc. if the material might be useful, and I see that that policy is reaffirmed as late as December 2009 (here).

    Anyway, keep up the good work – I appreciate your drawing my attention to relevant science I might otherwise have missed!

  124. JackStraw (16:23:54) :

    “You are missing a very simple yet key point. RealCimate.org was owned by a group called EMS or Environmental Media Services. EMS in turn was nothing more than a division of Fenton Communications. I would urge you to read the well documented book by Chris Horner, Red Hot Lies, if you have any doubts.”

    I asked if _Jim where the evidence for this claim was. I don’t see a WHOIS report as being sufficient enough. You suggest reading Chris Horner’s book, which I may get to eventually, but I did a quick Google search and here is a recent post from Chris Horner that suggest he doesn’t have any more proof than that WHOIS report (and he actually uses Wikipedia as a source, never a good sign): http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/climategate-what-are-the-alarmists-so-afraid-of/#_ftn1. So does the book actually have more evidence, or is that it? He also suggest Realclimate was started as a response to a Michael Crichton book which seems to go against the popular theory that it was started as a response to McIntyre’s site. Are you sure Horner knows what he’s talking about?

    “As a side note, I have also posted on RealClimate only to have my posts censored.”

    Sorry, Jackstraw. I hope you understand why I can’t just take the word of an anonymous internet commenter as fact without any other proof…

    _Jim (16:36:27) :

    “Idiot*; That is the intro(an excerpt) from the article I linked. Did you visit the link in that post that contains examples of RC censorship?”

    Yes, I looked at your article. WUWT doesn’t like that McIntyre isn’t included in the Real Climate wiki. That’s not evidence of censorship. And if calling people names is your idea of debate then we’re finished here anyway.

    In any case, how do you guys feel about the many errors in the article by Laframboise?

  125. OveHG (18:34:42) :

    What a bunch of codswallop! The report was commissioned by Greenpeace but peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It was undertaken by recognized experts with extensive track records. By the way, I have also worked for Rio Tinto and many other organisations. So what. I don’t pick sides – I just get on with doing the science. This is what we call objectivity. Ever heard of it?

    Yup, that makes it all OK, just like Tobacco funded studies. If you are funded by special interests the conclusions are going to be biased. We are not naive as you seem to think we are.

  126. Greenpeace’s involvement in the IPCC is deeper than suggested by laFramboise.

    Bill Hare (http://sites.google.com/a/primap.org/www/the-team/bill-hare) was a lead author in WG3 and the synthesis report. He used to be climate director of Greenpeace International before he became a “visiting scientist” (on the payroll of Greenpeace) at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impact Research: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/

    Mr Bill Hare, campaigner for Greenpeace, gradually morphed into Dr Bill Hare, respected scientist at PIK. Deception pure and simple.

    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=william+hare+pik&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=william+hare+greenpeace&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

  127. JackStraw (16:23:54) :

    “You are missing a very simple yet key point. RealCimate.org was owned by a group called EMS or Environmental Media Services. EMS in turn was nothing more than a division of Fenton Communications. I would urge you to read the well documented book by Chris Horner, Red Hot Lies, if you have any doubts.”

    Thanks for the info on the book. I may check it out, but the excerpt you link to doesn’t say much different than this recent article by Horner: http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/climategate-what-are-the-alarmists-so-afraid-of/. In both cases it’s seems his only proof is the WHOIS for the Realclimate.org website. Unless there is other evidence out there I don’t see how that WHOIS info is enough to show what you and Horner are claiming.

    _Jim (16:36:27) :

    “Idiot*; That is the intro(an excerpt) from the article I linked. Did you visit the link in that post that contains examples of RC censorship?”

    I read your link. WUWT thought Realclimate should have an article on McIntyre in their Wiki. That they don’t isn’t evidence of censorship. I’d say try again, but if you’re name calling already I guess that means your ability to discuss this rationally has disappeared.

  128. Ove HG
    As you are such a firm supporter of the science behind the IPCC AGW prediction, can you show me a scientific peer-reviewed paper from the IPCC that does not base their findings on peer-reviewed papers published by Mann and Jones? I was going to ask Anthony if such a paper is buried in all those pages, but I looked at your blog,and decided that as you are such a supporter of the science behind the AGW prediction, then you must know every paper intimately. Bear in mind that I am a dumbo when it comes to science, but from what I’m reading Mann and Jones have been thoroughly discredited, therefore to my simple mind any scientific study that quotes them as a reference is totally useless. As you have received funding from the Australian government, and you have put yourself into the public arena on this blog, as an Australian taxpayer I feel justified in asking that question. I know reporters won’t ask that question for me.

    http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4271

  129. In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. Typical AGW believer spouting typical disinformation and bull. Then there is Ove HG doing the same thing claiming the skeptics have only found 2 small errors, as noted in the climateshifts link above, in the IPCC report. More pablum for believers. The real deniers are the AGW crowd who refuse to see their evidence proved false and admit they were wrong and move on. The Climategate crowd admitted the emails were authentic so let’s not insinuate that them admitting Realclimate of theirs is fiction.

  130. OH MY GOD THE SCIENTISTS CITED ALL THE INFORMATION THEY COULD FIND ON GLOBAL WARMING! CONSPIRACY!11! THEY SHOULD ONLY LOOK AT STUFF FROM WUWT.COM

  131. snedly (02:10:48) :

    “In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. ”

    You have your facts wrong. Here is the email announcing the formation of Realclimate.org: http://bit.ly/9Q85Cy. Look at who signed it. Of the ten of them, only Mann has been tarnished by the CRU emails.

    You should also pay attention to their stated goal: “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
    we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
    doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
    events.” Sounds a lot less insidious than you were implying, In fact, based on WUWT willingness to turn a blind eye to the many errors in the original post by Donna Laframboise, it would seem important to have an opposing voice out there.

    “Then there is Ove HG doing the same thing claiming the skeptics have only found 2 small errors, as noted in the climateshifts link above, in the IPCC report. ”

    I don’t see where Ove HG said any of this. In his only post on this page he clarifies misconceptions on the Greenpeace report he co-authored (you realized he was one of the authors, right?) then he makes an admirable statement about his concern with the science over choosing sides. Is there some other Ove HG you were referring to?

  132. Re: the comment by Hans Moleman (04:12:51)

    Dear Sir,

    Thank you for your note, which you sent to me via e-mail and posted as a comment [here] on Friday. I try hard to be fair-minded and do take your concerns seriously. I felt it was important to give your letter some thought, and now reply on Sunday afternoon.

    Your first objection relates to my claim that the IPCC report:
    a) links climate change and coral reef degradation and then
    b) solely references a Greenpeace document titled “Pacific in Peril” authored by Hoegh-Guldberg et al, in 2000

    You say:

    1) “…in actuality the report cites Greenpeace as a reference for this sentence: “Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000). ” which is referring to the potential economic impacts of coral reef degradation. [bold added by me]

    The sentence you’ve identified, which appears in bold above, is precisely the sentence I referred to. It says climate change is expected to impact coral reefs. You are correct that the larger discussion involves possible economic impacts related to reduced tourism in the event of coral reef degradation. One could, no doubt, devote several paragraphs to explaining the discussion the IPCC was having on that page. But since I had a list of eight publications to talk about, I summed up, in one sentence, the gist of the matter.

    My central point – that the IPCC relied on a Greenpeace document when discussing coral reefs and climate change – is not invalidated. It does not follow, therefore, that a correction is in order – or that readers have been misled. I linked directly to the source so that readers could easily see the matter in its larger context for themselves.

    Your second objection is hair-splitting at its finest. You express it thus:

    2) Ms. Laframboise writes: “Here the [IPCC] report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).” which is misleading since the sentence actually reads: “Technical potential estimates for global CSP vary widely from 630 GWe installed by 2040 (Aringhoff et al., 2003) to 4700 GWe by 2030 (IEA, 2003h; Table 4.2).” Greenpeace does not establish a lower limit it provides a “potential estimate”. There is clearly a difference in meaning between Laframboise’s implication and the actual language used. [bold added by me]

    Aringhoff, we both agree, is another Greenpeace-published paper. I say the IPCC “relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower end of an estimate…” You give things a twist and claim that I’m saying it’s Greenpeace doing the establishing. In my single-sentence sum up, I indicate that this section of the IPCC report discusses estimates, you insist that a “potential estimate” is at issue.

    Once again, you believe a correction is necessary because readers have been misled. Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that I’ve linked directly to the larger context – and that none of this invalidates my core message: that Greenpeace material was cited by the IPPC to support a declaration it chose to make.

    Your third objection reads as follow: [I’ve added in the bold]:

    3) Ms. Laframboise writes: “When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the [IPCC] report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence.” This is the sentence she refers to: “Estimates of current global installed peak capacity vary widely, including 2400 MW (Greenpeace, 2004); 3100 MW (Maycock, 2003); >4000MW generating more than 21 TWh (Martinot et al., 2005) and 5000 MW (Greenpeace, 2006). ” As you can see, Greenpeace is not used as a scientific reference as Laframboise implies, but instead as an example of the many different estimates of “current global installed peak capacity [of solar electricity]“.

    A Greenpeace document is cited as evidence in an IPCC report. That is my sole concern. Whether or not it meets your personal definition of a “scientific reference” is another matter. I therefore reject your view that a “clarification” of what I’ve said is in any way required.

    Which brings us to your final objection:

    4) Ms. Laframboise writes: ” Here [the IPCC] uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the “main wind-energy investments” are located globally (Wind).” She is referring to this sentence: “The main wind-energy investments have been in Europe, Japan, China, USA and India (Wind Force 12, 2005).” The source referenced here is actually a joint paper with credit shared between the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace. As you can see from the GWEC web page (http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=17), their members are from wind industry associations across the globe so it is unsurprising that they would be used as a reference with regards to the main-wind energy investments. [my bold]

    For the fourth time, you aggressively demand that I – and Anthony Watts – post a correction/clarification so that “readers aren’t misled.” But anyone who read my piece knows that, in the very next paragraph, I discuss GWEC in a manner which makes it abundantly clear that Greenpeace produces documents in partnership with other entities.

    That fact in no way challenges my central thesis: that the IPCC treats material published by Greenpeace as evidence. Might there be occasions in which referencing Greenpeace-generated literature is appropriate and legitimate? Perhaps. But that is another discussion.

    Reasonable people will have different opinions about the same sections of text in any document. But while you’ve invoked both smoke and mirrors, there’s remarkably little substance to your concerns. It does you no honour to insist that I have committed “a number of errors” and that readers have been misled on four separate occasions.

    Yours truly,

    Donna Laframboise

  133. Oops! Apparently bolding isn’t possible here. This was originally an e-mail response, which I cut-and-pasted to this forum.

    My apologies if the references to bold text is confusing.

    [Bold is done with HTML: <b> ~dbs, mod]

  134. Hans Moleman (11:57:56) :

    snedly (02:10:48) :

    “In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. ”

    You have your facts wrong. Here is the email announcing the formation of Realclimate.org: http://bit.ly/9Q85Cy. Look at who signed it. Of the ten of them, only Mann has been tarnished by the CRU emails.

    You should also pay attention to their stated goal: “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
    we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
    doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
    events.”

    —…—…

    You are apparently trying to “trial lawyer” (or “Bill Clinton” if you will) out of this summary:
    RealClimate is written and edited (regardless of when started and who was present and encouraging the referenced email – which I have no reason or evidence to believe is accurate or complete anyway) by publically-paid employees on public time during business hours to hide and corrupt the growing errors inherent in AGW propaganda.

  135. Daganstein (08:30:47) said:

    OH MY GOD THE SCIENTISTS CITED ALL THE INFORMATION THEY COULD FIND ON GLOBAL WARMING! CONSPIRACY!11! THEY SHOULD ONLY LOOK AT STUFF FROM WUWT.COM

    You know you are dealing with a wanker when they can’t find the caps key and type everything in upper case.

    If only they were all scientists, Daganstein. However, the good folks at that organization that it now seems should be called I Prefer Carnal Collaboration are not all scientists.

    Moreover, we thing they should stick to the science, not Greenpeace or WWF political advocacy stuff, and they probably should think seriously about a chairman who wants to write about Carnal matters.

  136. Hans Moleman (11:57:56) :

    snedly (02:10:48) :

    “In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. ”

    You have your facts wrong. Here is the email announcing the formation of Realclimate.org: http://bit.ly/9Q85Cy. Look at who signed it. Of the ten of them, only Mann has been tarnished by the CRU emails.

    You should also pay attention to their stated goal: “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
    we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
    doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
    events.”

    —…—…

    You are apparently trying to “trial lawyer” (or “Bill Clinton” if you will) out of this summary:
    RealClimate is (now) written and edited (regardless of when started and who was present and encouraging the referenced email or who claimed they signed the referenced email – which I have no reason or evidence to believe is accurate or complete anyway) by publicly-paid employees on public time during business hours to hide and corrupt the growing errors inherent in AGW propaganda.

    To date, you – who have complained about “unknown writers and bloggers – have not said who you are, who pays your salary, who validated whatever qualifications you may claim to have, and what prejudices you being with you. Why should any here waste their time addressing your nit-picking (all shown to be false in any case) nuances?

    While your nit-picking is illustrative of the false background of the AGW propagandists, you have not advanced the discussion about the biases and false conclusions of the UN’s IPCC based on bad science and a refusal to accurately analyze the 1/2 of one degree (maybe) of warming that occurred the past 50 years. That is IF ANY of the HADCRU-GISS-NOAA-NCDC surface temperatures are accurate – and THAT we doubt as well.

    Or the 1/10 of one degree of warming that has occurred since the 1930’s.

    Or the 1 degree (maybe!) of warming that has occurred since the 1600’s.

    Or the 1/2 of one degree cooling that has occurred since the 1200’s.

  137. Ms. Laframboise,

    First, thanks for your reply. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments, though I must say I’m very disappointed in what I read. I emailed you under the assumption that, as your Noconsensus.org blog states, you really did want to expand the debate on Global Warming. My expectation after reading that was you meant to cut through the BS surrounding Global Warming, not add to it. But your response to me shows the opposite.

    You state “A Greenpeace document is cited as evidence in an IPCC report. That is my sole concern.” and then later continue “Might there be occasions in which referencing Greenpeace-generated literature is appropriate and legitimate? Perhaps. But that is another discussion.” No, that is not another discussion. That is this discussion. To author a post that suggests there is a problem with the IPCC citing Greenpeace as a reference and then to suggest, after the fact, that it is possible some of those citations may have been appropriate or legitimate is the height of dishonesty. How can it be wrong for the IPCC to cite Greenpeace, but also be appropriate and legitimate? In addition, since your response suggests you haven’t yet considered whether the Greenpeace citations were appropriate or legitimate, I’d like to know when you plan your follow up post examining that question?

    And you’ve still got item #1 on my list of your errors wrong. You even rewrote the complete sentence and failed to see it, so I’ll put it here again: ““Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000).” Did you bother to check out Box 6.1 or Section 6.4.1.5? Though you continue to assert that Greenpeace was the sole reference for the part of this sentence that links climate change to coral reef degradation, had you checked out either of those sections you would have found a plethora of peer-reviewed references that talk all about climate change and the coral reefs. And did you read the entire title of the Greenpeace reference before posting a truncated version in your blog post? The title is not “Pacific in Peril” as you assert. The full title is “Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs”. ECONOMIC. It’s clear if you read the title (and even more clear if you read the paper – I linked to it above) that the focus of this document is not how climate change degrades coral reefs, but what impact that degradation may have on the people of the Pacific (including economic impacts from reduced tourism). In short, a wholly appropriate reference for a sentence suggesting coral reef degradation may hurt tourism.

    You write, in closing, that your thesis was meant to be: “That the IPCC treats material published by Greenpeace as evidence.”, but this is in no way a thesis statement nor was it yours unless you really have no business being part of the discussion on global warming. “That the IPCC treats material published by Greenpeace as evidence” requires no argument. Anyone who has bothered to read the IPCC report can see this. The debate revolves around whether theses citations were appropriate or not and until you take the important step of answering that question I don’t see why yours is a voice worth hearing in this discussion.

  138. Why is anyone bothering to “debate” with Moleman the troll? Even his username gives it away. Still, show him every courtesy and all that.

    You can ad me to the anecdotal list of people who have been censored at RC too.

  139. Mods,

    Since Donna Laframboise’s most recent post makes it clear that she has yet to investigate the significance of the Greenpeace references cited in the IPCC report, can you correct your sentence in the original post that states Greenpeace has had “a significant hand in the IPCC climate bible.”? Or, if you have other information regarding the significance of the Greenpeace references, can you please post that information when you get a chance?

  140. Hans,

    The statement is true as written. Why correct a statement of fact? It is perhaps that you are reading negative overtones in it that makes you squeamish about it? Apparently it matters more to you that Greenpeace was used as a peer reviewed source (note: I am not saying the only source), than it does the authors who are just pointing out that Greenpeace is being used (GP is hardly an unbiased source).

    Just because you do not like the color blue, does not mean the authors of a “Blue Sky” have to change the title of their work.

  141. Phil Jourdan (06:10:32) :

    “The statement is true as written. Why correct a statement of fact?”

    No, it’s not true as written. None of the Greenpeace references listed by Laframboise support the idea that Greenpeace had a “significant hand in the IPCC climate bible.” and WUWT has not offered any additional information. You do know what the word “significant” means, right?

  142. Hans,

    You do know what “a hand in” means, right? For non native speakers, idioms are often difficult. I will translate it to simpler terms if you need it.

  143. PhilJourdan (15:50:18) :

    “You do know what “a hand in” means, right? For non native speakers, idioms are often difficult. I will translate it to simpler terms if you need it.”

    I’d love to hear your translation. And don’t forget to use the word ‘significant’ in front of it.

  144. “I’d love to hear your translation. And don’t forget to use the word ’significant’ in front of it.”

    Me too.

  145. I wonder how many commentators here have delved into the report? Mostly what I see is reactionary comments based on shallow media reports and like-minded blogs. It’s a good idea if you’re after the truth to delve yourself. For example, Box 4.4 on coral reefs in chapter 4 of Working group 2 provides a densely referenced assessment, here’s a small extract “Adaptation potential (Hughes et al., 2003) by reef organisms requires further experimental and applied study (Coles and Brown, 2003; Hughes et al., 2003). Natural adaptive shifts to symbionts with +2°C resistance may delay demise of some reefs to roughly 2100 (Sheppard, 2003), rather than mid-century (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005) although this may vary widely across the globe (Donner et al., 2005). Estimates of warm-water coral cover reduction in the last 20-25 years are 30% or higher (Wilkinson, 2004; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005) due largely to increasing higher SST frequency (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). In some regions, such as the Caribbean, coral losses have been estimated at 80% (Gardner et al., 2003). Coral migration to higher latitudes with more optimal SST is unlikely, due both to latitudinally decreasing aragonite concentrations and projected atmospheric CO2 increases (Kleypas et al., 2001; Guinotte et al., 2003; Orr et al., 2005; Raven et al., 2005). Coral migration is also limited by lack of available substrate (Chapter 6, Section 6.4.1.5). Elevated SST and decreasing aragonite have a complex synergy (Harvell et al., 2002; Reynaud et al., 2003; McNeil et al., 2004; Kleypas et al., 2005) but could produce major coral reef changes (Guinotte et al., 2003; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005). Corals could become rare on tropical and sub-tropical reefs by 2050 due to the combined effects of increasing CO2 and increasing frequency of bleaching events (at 2-3 * CO2) (Kleypas and Langdon, 2002; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005; Raven et al., 2005).”

    I dare you go and read the reports in detail before sounding off.

    REPLY:
    see the main page of WUWT, there’s now calls from a prominent scientist in the UK to address these issues – Anthony

  146. Sheesh, this post still hasn’t been fixed. Are you guys still seriously trying to claim that Greenpeace had a “significant hand in the IPCC climate Bible”?

    Surely you’ve had enough time to look into the Greenpeace sources by now. Where’s the evidence for your statement?

  147. Wow, you guys should be proud. I see Mark Landsbaum has picked up and run with the BS printed in this post: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092–.html

    Check out the paragraph on Reefgate: “Let’s not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.”

    Hard to find anything in that paragraph that’s true. Congratulations on successfully adding to the volumes of misinformation that are already out there regarding the IPCC!

  148. Vibenna, Hans, Ove, TK, Phil, and especially Frank,

    I’ve capitalized the KEYWORDS in your nice summary of the detailed references in the subject document beyond the GreenPeace issue discussed here, for your consideration:

    “Adaptation potential (Hughes et al., 2003) by reef organisms REQUIRES FURTHER experimental and applied STUDY (Coles and Brown, 2003; Hughes et al., 2003). Natural adaptive shifts to symbionts with +2°C resistance MAY DELAY DEMISE of some reefs to roughly 2100 (Sheppard, 2003), rather than mid-century (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005) although this MAY vary widely across the globe (Donner et al., 2005). ESTIMATES of warm-water coral cover reduction in the last 20-25 years are 30% or higher (Wilkinson, 2004; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005) due largely to increasing higher SST frequency (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). In some regions, such as the Caribbean, coral losses have been ESTIMATED at 80% (Gardner et al., 2003). Coral migration to higher latitudes with more optimal SST is unlikely, due both to latitudinally decreasing aragonite concentrations and PROJECTED atmospheric CO2 increases (Kleypas et al., 2001; Guinotte et al., 2003; Orr et al., 2005; Raven et al., 2005). Coral migration is also limited by lack of available substrate (Chapter 6, Section 6.4.1.5). Elevated SST and decreasing aragonite have a complex synergy (Harvell et al., 2002; Reynaud et al., 2003; McNeil et al., 2004; Kleypas et al., 2005) but COULD PRODUCE MAJOR coral reef changes (Guinotte et al., 2003; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005). Corals COULD BECOME RARE on tropical and sub-tropical reefs by 2050 due to the combined effects of increasing CO2 and increasing frequency of bleaching events (at 2-3 * CO2) (Kleypas and Langdon, 2002; Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005; Raven et al., 2005).”

    Please define the capitalized terms, along with your own definition of “SIGNIFICANT” and “HAND IN.”

    I just love getting lost in semantic fog with CAGW folks!

Comments are closed.