All the years I’ve been in TV news, I’ve observed that every story has a tipping point. In news, we know when it has reached that point when we say it “has legs” and the story takes on a life of its own. The story may have been ignored or glossed over for weeks, months, or years until some new piece of information is posted and starts to galvanize people. The IPCC glacier melt scandal was the one that galvanized the collective voice that has been saying that the IPCC report was seriously flawed and represented a political rather than scientific view. Now people are seriously looking at AR4 with a critical eye and finding things everywhere.
Remember our friends at World Wildlife Fund? Those schlockmeisters that produced the video of planes flying into New York with explicit comparisons to 9/11?
Well it turns out that the WWF is cited all over the IPCC AR4 report, and as you know, WWF does not produce peer reviewed science, they produce opinion papers in line with their vision. Yet IPCC’s rules are such that they are supposed to rely on peer reviewed science only. It appears they’ve violated that rule dozens of times, all under Pachauri’s watch.
A new posting authored by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) shows what one can find in just one day of looking.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html
Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:
- 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
Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:
- Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
- Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76
Not only should Pachauri resign, the Nobel committee should be deluged by world citizenry demanding they revoke the Nobel prize granted to the body that produced this document.
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 70-271 online course and improve your 70-294 test score up to 100% using certified 640-460 material.
D Patterson,
Your posting on communism & Trotskyism was interesting. The ideology of Communism is alive and will not die. Yet, their alliance with the green movement is a somewhat uncomfortable one, mainly because of major differences that cannot be reconcilled.
The deep green movement want to ban humans from much of the world, sort of put them on reservations whilst the rest of the world is returned to the wild. Additionally they want to remove from humans the fruits of their labour. Hardly the dictatorship of the proletariat. Maybe the extreme communists will accept this, but I can’t see this sitting well with the more mainstream Socialist movement. Socialists have always believed in industrial development with wealth distribution going to the poor. Yet the Greens are ideologically opposed to industrial development.
It seems that the only thing that these unlikely allies have in common is based on the literal interpretation of the maxim: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, rest assured, once the “enemy” is defeated, they will turn on each other like any other unholy alliance – and even some holy ones.
Communists are still looking for ways to get at “world domination” even though they don’t have the Soviet Union to help them along any longer.
Imagine that!
The only imaginative part has been to find a way to make Capitalism (and the West) “bury itself.”
This is not going away and they won’t let go now that their apples are in their cart and the endgame in their sites. Greenpeace has admitted they made up the Greenland glacier scandal. Mount Kilimanjaro glacier recession is conclusively a product of deforestation. This is a huge huge fraud and they are looking for any reason to implement their global tax/ governance. This is built on three pillars: world financial crisis to bring about a world central banking system (manipulated), world health pandemics such as swine flu , bird flu, SARS and mad cow (manufactured) the global warming (made up) religion / tax.
Be wary of the next hoax in health or environment it is meant to manufacture a need to depend on a globalist system under their control, not ours. Try to get off the tit of banking we really don’t need them and we can establish our own system without their (government, corporations, central banks) ‘help’. They may go as far as to manufacture another war to send us to the beggars table but there will be no war if there is no one to fight it. They are proven liars time and time again, don’t believe and support the lies (by your dollars, your votes or your apathy) you are being fed or you are part of the problem.
D Patterson
{etc}
You forget the point that there is a much closer relationship between environmentalism and conservative political thinking. E,g, Hardin’s “the tragedy of the commons”, which was an argument for the abolition of commonly owned property on environmental grounds.
The ‘environmental’ issue is just an accidental part of todays political ‘environment’, not some integral part of the ‘left’ project. In fact, the use of such issue demonstrates the extent to which the Left has had to change its language to criticise capitalism: i.e. there is no communism.
You want to point your fingers and say “bad science = bad politics”. The problem is that to political scientists, you’re just doing the same as what you’re pointing at.
The fact that small groups of people assemble in meeting rooms and call themselves ‘communists’ does not mean that “communism is alive and well”.
“Communism” was what drove a superpower, and divided the world into East and West. A few people in a bar is nothing to wet your pants about.
“Communists are still looking for ways to get at “world domination” ”
Oh, those pesky ghosts. When will they just move on?
” Try to get off the tit of banking we really don’t need them and we can establish our own system without their (government, corporations, central banks) ‘help’. ”
Sounds like the sort of thing Greens and Communists say.
@Andrew30:
“I bet the boss, whomever that might be, is furious.”
Try, ultimately, David Rockefeller.
There are two camps ostensibly vying for ‘global governance’ control – the ‘right’, of the neocons, the corporatists, the banking fraternity, etc., and the ‘left’, of Maurice Strong/George Soros/Noam Chomsky/Ayers & Dohrn/the Clintons & the Obamas, etc. – but if you look far enough up the pyramid, I think you’ll see at least the shadow of the same small group of ubermenschen. The same way that the capitalists bankrolled the Bolsheviks/Lenin. It’s all about power, and the way to gain it (Hegelism). So don’t be surprised to see some of the same names on both sides of this artificial aisle. GS, GE…..
…but ultimately: check out King David.
Or erstwhile King David, that is. Because it’s all part of the drama. Unfolding, as it will.
kibitzer
2010/01/26 at 10:17am
@Andrew30:
““I bet the boss, whomever that might be, is furious.”
Try, ultimately, David Rockefeller.
There are two camps ostensibly vying for ‘global governance’ control – the ‘right’, of the neocons, the corporatists, the banking fraternity, etc., and the ‘left’, of Maurice Strong/George Soros/Noam Chomsky/Ayers & Dohrn/the Clintons & the Obamas, etc.”
The first approximation that this is nothing but conspiracy theory or ignorance is demonstrated by the fact that the banking class is in the pockets of the DNC domestically, and historically has financed socialist movements such as Trotsky/Lenin’s Revolution and Mao’s takeover of mainland China. The bankers thus have nothing to do with neocons, and have more to do with the left you describe. The Right is represented in industry by the oil/mining and defense interests, while traditional rust belt industry is leftist along with the bankers and NYC financial class. It’s actually a lot more complex than that and changes over time (for instance, the New Deal era demonstrated a conflict in control theory between the pollsters who supported Roosevelt and the Freudian backed PR industry that believed individuals were untrustworthy emotion driven animals, while after WWII the bipartisan federal govt basically accepted the freudian model in light of the manipulations of everyday people by the german govt during the war ).
“….the banking class is in the pockets of the DNC domestically, and historically has financed socialist movements such as Trotsky/Lenin’s Revolution and Mao’s takeover of mainland China. The bankers thus have nothing to do with neocons…”
You’re *against* conspiracy theories????!!!
I have looked into mikelorrey’s claim that bankers financed Trotsky.
It appears to have little academic credibility, and seems to me to be a story invented by anti-Semites – neoNazis and the like – in order to place Jews at the centre of left-wing history.
Antisemitic conspiracy theories about bankers have a long, long, long history, of course. It’s a crude form of right anti-capitalism that seems to be finding new expression, 70 years after Trotsky’s death.
The failure of rationality and proportion is stark: just one “jew banker” (that’s the dominant language of sites propagating the story) is alleged to have given Trotsky gold for his revolution, over a hundred years ago. This, it seems, is sufficient to call the entire global financial services industry, ‘communists’.
People who call bankers “left” on this basis do so because they are dizzy with something, and cannot determine any direction.
Frankly, what I’ve read here is disappointing. Yes, I believe that global warming is exaggerated for political purposes. But that’s where it ends. And if it’s a choice between that, and the nonsense I’ve read above, I know where I’d rather be. Both communists and environmentalists are looking more sensible.
If you don’t think that a bunch of sore Leninists with no Afghan War to win and no Politboro to bully and no “workers of the world to unite!” haven’t teamed up with some Greenlice to tear down Western civilization, then why don’t you go back and Think! again
Because, Brian, it is more than obvious that it’s not just “sore Leninists” on the gravey train.
There are some equally sore thinkers from the “right” on it too…
The difference between them is global communism was routed. Capitalism triumphed.
So why and *how*, in the era following the defeat of communism, is the failed ideology supposed to have convinced nearly the entire world’s political establishment, whereas for decades prior, it comprehensively failed?
The problem is only seeing the world in two colours. It means you can’t tell the difference between a social democrat and a communist; a communist and a socialist; left and right; up and down; forward and backward. It all reduces to “me and them”.
The absurdities this “thinking” takes people to is above, in black and white (with nothing between): bankers – i.e. the definitive *capitalists* – are in fact communists.
(I cannot resist the implication that if capitalists are communists, then it is those calling bankers ‘communists’ who are in fact the communists.)
You’re in a spin! If this is what unites climate change sceptics, then there are bigger problems than the IPCC.
Turn the Alex Jones show off, it’s rotting your brains.
The list of WWF references is meaningless unless you show what information those references were cited for.
Think! (11:08:34)
Today’s world is different. there is no communism.
Right. In the U.S. they all became Democrats as a tactical move since they realized that they weren’t going to achieve their ends qua Communists. I saw it happen and personally knew extremely well the Leader of the/a Communist Party branch in the San Francisco Bay area. Around 1984 he and they disbanded the Party for all practical purposes. He became a Democrat and a University Prof., as per the Gramscian strategy. [ I didn’t know exactly what was going on at the time, but noticed it, kept quiet and just watched.]
Obama is the product of the resulting Dem. Progressivism = Communism. I made the call early on re; Obama, enc., and it works. Fortuneately Obama and Adm. are “latte'” or “Marxisant” Communists: they believe completely in the social-circle elitist virtual rubric of the “theroretical” Communist Fantasy World. It’s hard to believe what you are seeing, but for them reality does not exist at all, things are easy to do and respond to the old Communist Propaganda schema, tweaked of course by the self-ascribed nuanced brilliance of those in the Fantasyworld.
This explains why Obama, enc., keep doing very strange things compared to realtiy, things which are not even good for their own political wellbeing and for accomplishing their desired “ends”.
According to my Model for understanding Obama, enc., tomorrow night’s State of the Uniion Address will show Obama still completely immersed in the Fantasyworld, making no sense relative to reality, but instead only repeating old “theoretical” saws and propaganda tactics which must work according to the Fantasyworld, but are all over the board in terms of even internal consistency because they can also just be fabricated as in a narcissistic computer game or day dream. They don’t apply to anything real other than vague “perceptions”. He’s going to be a charicature of himself.
3,2 mm/year of sea level rise IS REAL DATA, from SATELLITE ALTIMETRY.
It is NOT the result from any model. I put it quite clear.
Someone need a new pair of eyeglasses.
By the way, someone wrote something like:
“the financial crisis, global warming, influenza pandemic are all a hoax”
” It is a conspiracy to made a world dictatorship under a World Communist Bank”
What drug have you smoked?
LSD? Ashish? Extasis? All at once?!
J. Peden, your knowledge of one communist-turned-democrat is held to be true of all democrats. That is not robust.
(I know of at least two very-right leaning British public figures who were both members of far-left organisations in the 1970s. People change. )
So what were Democrats prior to that? For instance, what were Democrats during the Cuban Missile Crisis? And was it just a pantomime between communist factions? At what point between the conflict which nearly escalated to a nuclear exchange and now did the “communists” quit Moscow, to collonise the Democrats.
More to the point…
At what point did the Republican Party become so weak that it could not resist *communism*? Communism, of all things un-American(!).
If conservativism is so weak… as weak as it must be to allow America to turn *within a generation* to the ideology it had stood against for generations… then, indeed, just as there are “sore Leninists”, there must be more than a few very sore Conservatives, Hayakeans, Weberians. And so on. I suggest that they went Green too.
Or maybe the truth is that neither Left or Right sustained.
Think!:
A communist is just a socialist in a hurry.
And:
“I know of at least two very-right leaning British public figures…”
Who are these mythical ‘very-right leaning’ creatures?
Smokey: “A communist is just a socialist in a hurry.”
Uh-huh. He’s got to get to Wall St to sell shares to his comrades.
“Who are these mythical ‘very-right leaning’ creatures?”
Peter Hitchens and Melanie Philips.
The former was a member of the Trotskyite group, the International Socialists in the 1970s.
The latter, I admit, I cannot confirm was in any far left organisation, but was certainly very left by the standards of today, yet who accuses Obama of being a Muslim revolutionary Marxist. (Very confused lady).
Think! (13:48:17),
You missed my point entirely. There are no very right leaning British public figures. It was sarcasm, thus the “mythical.” Those you label ‘very right’ are still somewhat left of center.
In fact, if Democrat John F. Kennedy was running for president today, many members of his Party would brand him as a far right ideologue. That’s how much the Left has corrupted the Democrat Party, and moved the Party very far to the left of its roots – and the Republicans too, although to a lesser degree. [And IANAR or a D]
“There are no very right leaning British public figures. ”
Peter Hitchens calls Thatcher, “a socialist”. Melanie Philips calls Obama a revolutionary Marxist.
“if Democrat John F. Kennedy was running for president today, many members of his Party would brand him as a far right ideologue. ”
How do we give substance to that claim? What’s the basis for it? It looks a little threadbare from here.
“It looks a little threadbare from here.”
I am not the least bit surprised. To those steeped in blaring leftist sound bites 24/7/365, someone only slightly to the left of center in the UK appears to be a rabid right winger.
In the U.S., the Left mendaciously portrays those who believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution as right wingers. But as Justice Scalia says, the Constitution is “a legal document,” whose overriding purpose is to protect the citizens from the government. That’s why the big government loving, big bureaucracy loving, UN loving Left hates the Constitution so much.
I am joking with the idea, Think, and actually, a lot of pro-Soviets in Russia see AGW as a silly contrivance of Western societies – they are apt to favor the Russian akademy nauk which has pretty much rejected AGW based on Milankovitsch cycles. (AGW could not possibly interfere with the cycles, nothing could)
It has become rather chi-chi for people who are not suffering in the West and with “liberal” leaning politics to favor AGW, psychological reasons unknown, political reasons for a sympathetic association with Albert.
These people are not “communists.”
[They’re commie pinkos]
J.Peden (21:15:39) : ““Tarby’s Posts”
Well, I guess we can perhaps surmise where some “Stimulus” money goes? But then to possibly help Tarby produce a work record,…”
————————————————————
Unh-unh. Big fail. Dead wrong.
Someone else said I initially referred to IPCC AR4 and then changed the reference to Copenhagen Diagnosis playing some kind of “game” in an effort to mislead. Clarification: The Copenhagen Diagnosis compares observations to IPCC AR4 model predictions up to late 2009. Try reading it and you might get the link.
A bit like; try reading the original article at the top of the page which asserts and bases its ALLEGATIONS on IPCC reports only being able to use peer reviewed material….. In other words, it’s WRONG. The scandal doesn’t deepen at all.
As for grey material be used used as main citations: Where does it say that in the IPCC rules?
Tarby
2010/01/26 at 3:40pm
“J.Peden (21:15:39) : ““Tarby’s Posts”
Well, I guess we can perhaps surmise where some “Stimulus” money goes? But then to possibly help Tarby produce a work record,…”
A bit like; try reading the original article at the top of the page which asserts and bases its ALLEGATIONS on IPCC reports only being able to use peer reviewed material….. In other words, it’s WRONG. The scandal doesn’t deepen at all.
As for grey material be used used as main citations: Where does it say that in the IPCC rules?”
Since you seem so determined to treat alarmist writings as received truth, I shall quote the most recent post at RealClimate.org:
“The IPCC is not infallible (shock!)
— group @ur momisugly 19 January 2010
Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review. ”
See what I mean? The IPCC process itself is peer review, and is supposed to be in place to weed out garbage like the “2035” error, and the Amazon error, etc… but as we see, the Hockey Team has so thoroughly corrupted the peer review process not just among climate journals but in the IPCC itself (rejecting ALL meaningful criticisms by reviewers, no legitimate peer review process allows authors to reject reviewers criticisms) that they are using this bowdlerized mutant brother of real peer review to greywash the grey propaganda produced by alarmist special interest groups without any significant investigation of these illegitimate sources. Yet the world leaders of the alarmist cause, the authors of RealClimate.org, called the IPCC itself “peer reviewed” just a few days ago…
Given they regard themselves as the holy purveyors of all that is true and factual in re climate change, and you, Tarby, appear as one of their soldiers, I think it is only fair that we hold them, you, as well as the IPCC, to their standards.
I appreciate the work of Anthony Watts, who has consistently published a scientifically irrefutable picture of the natural atmosphere and the climate that represents the time-averaged state of the atmosphere.
Inasmuch as anything that the IPCC or anyone else has written or published regarding the true state of the Earth’s atmosphere as experienced by the Earth’s climate, all have been refuted if the description was incorrect; excepting Mr Watts, and I defy any one to point to a contradiction otherwise
“Russia matters nothing to me; what matters is to achieve world socialist revolution.” (Lenin)
“Under the guise of Greens (and we will pin it on them later) we shall go forward … and hang the kulaks, priests, and landowners. Bounty: 100,000 rubles for each man hanged.” (Lenin)
“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.” (Stalin)
“Green Communist. Green thoughts from the Former Soviet Union
[2 November 2009]
5 reasons why Stalin was greener than Obama will ever be
People have bad memory. I will take care of some things that otherwise would be forgotten. We all agree that Soviet Union was a great place to live. Just recall how charismatic leaders we had! One thing that critics often forget is the fact that these great leaders were also amazing green entrepreneurs. Let the facts talk for themselves![….]”
http://www.greencommunist.com/