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

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

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Are we sure these articles, originally printed in the Greenpeace literature are not peer reviewed, publish and actually have merit?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

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.

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

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

*Greenpeace even

Sorry that should read “melting”.

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.

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.

I fail to be surprised by any new relevaltion now.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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/

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.

Follow the money:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100129/D9DHC2380.html

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/

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?

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)

“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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

“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

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.

For any Warmists who are still sitting on the fence.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-29/india-food-rising-prices.html#

A candidate for Pachauri’s position?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHCO002.html

@ 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.

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?

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

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!]

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.

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.

Another blow for the team http://bushynews.com/?p=23.
I see also that Bin Laden has got into the act.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html?ref=world

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.

Mod could you fix that last url http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html?ref=world

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.

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

What’s next? Are we going to find PETA references in IPCC AR4? It would not surprise me.

This is crazy, They are going to and pass legislation based on this report.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R6YF20100128?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

I have to post this, partly because I am a geologist by profession and can immediately see a huge number of logical inconsistencies in the report and partly just for the “WTF?” factor.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/earthquakes.htm
Please try to make sure you are not drinking your tea when you read this as I will not be held liable for damage to keyboards.

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!

But Greenpeace *is* peer-reviewed. Look e.g. at this peer who is reviewing other peers from the top:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/seasia/en/photosvideos/photos/greenpeace-climber-m-ediandre.jpg

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.”

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!

Could we just say that the IPCC is a “peerless group?”

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.

Greenpeace funds the CRU
REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? -A

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.

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”

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.

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

“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?

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?

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

“Hans Moleman (12:20:50) :
[…]
I don’t see any evidence of censorship.”
What a funny statement to make. You mean, no blackened sentences?

_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?

“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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂

Alan the Brit, You are so right with your bit on just what propaganda looks like. Now overlay it on this futerra.uk piece dealing with the AGW message called: “the rules of the game”. Cut from the same cloth… The follow up PR piece to this is called; New rules, New game. The people who wrote this stuff have a unique viewpoint of the world around them… and us.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/how-to-propagandize-climate-change

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

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!

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=

Has anyone noticed that Greenpeace was cited AGAIN by the IPCC!?!?! Who in their right mind thinks Greenpeace is scientific????
http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/30/greenpeace-cited-multiple-times-in-ipccs-third-assessment-report/

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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!