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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tarby (15:40:37) :
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.
Gee, Tarby, here I was trying to give you a way out from apparently being unable to respond effectively to logic and facts, including to the rest of the post you quote me from above, J.Peden (21:15:39), and also to express some hope that you are not really so “unable”, and your response is not to thank me but to instead prove my point?
Well, I then I guess I should thank you at least for that! Thanks, Tarby!!
Think! (13:30:10) :
J. Peden, your knowledge of one communist-turned-democrat is held to be true of all democrats. That is not robust.
Since that’s not what I said, I’ll just leave it at that.
J.Peden: “Since that’s not what I said, I’ll just leave it at that.”
You leave it where you like. The fact is that the way you use political categories is pretty much equivalent to the way alarmists use small increases in temperature: a small change in a direction = a full, catastrophic transformation of everything.
E.g. “Obama is the product of the resulting Dem. Progressivism = Communism. I made the call early on re; Obama, enc., and it works. ”
I will believe that Obama is a “communist” when he calls for the abolition of private property. There’s some way to go.
Of course, you can get your knickers in a twist about “socialised medicine”, and say that it’s an attempt to turn the US into a communist state. But seen another way, it could argued that socialised medicine is rather an attempt to stop conditions from developing in which communism becomes a political force, in the interests of capital.
But, of course, if you see “bankers” as equivalent to “communists” – then you’re too far gone to make sense of anything. It could be said that that such a position is communist, but with all the labels inverted. I don’t think it’s anything as sensible.
I’ll make it all simple and define a Communist as anyone who believes in AGW and demands the Government to “do things about it.”
Are you still joking, Brian?
Only by half !!!
It makes me feel better, though, to shout “You COMMUNIST!!!”
when I read things in the Washington Post that are supportive of Cap and Trade etc
“when I read things in the Washington Post that are supportive of Cap and Trade etc”
Brian, Cap and Trade is an idea that is borne from conservative political ecological ideas, not from the Left.
In “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Hardin argued that property held in common exposed virtuous people to the shortcomings of “free-riders”. In his example, irresponsible commoners could use common land to graze more cattle than was necessary in order to swell their own numbers (or sell the stock), at the expense of the quality of the land. This puts a burden on commoners who used the land responsibly, who kept their families and stocks at sizes that did not put too great a pressure on the land.
His argument is that the “invisible hand” does not work in such an arrangement. Privatisation of the commons is the way to prevent ecological disaster. Accordingly, “Capping and Trading” is the privatisation/commodification of the publicly-owned resources. It is equivalent to the first sale of land. The idea is that people who own things use them responsibly.
As with other forms of private property, the market it creates requires a state to regulate and protect it.
Leftists at the time were sharply critical of Hardin, for reasons that ought to be obvious.
Sorry to disappoint you.
The Progressive Labor Movement (PLM) and the Progressive Labor Party (PLP) are Maoist communist political parties established 1962-1966 by former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The communist weathermen group financed by front organizations of the Soviet Union also came from these Progressive communists and the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).
We won’t hold our breath while we wait for you to acknowledge Obama’s abolition of private property like the Chrysler assets currently the subject of a lawsuit for wrongful appropriations of private property, or the abolition of private property rights with the Cap and Trade legislation to give effect to the Climate Change Alarmism championed by so many communist organizations and members.
[h/t ctm]
I believe you’ll have to convince me with another example, because Cap n Trade is about as leftist a measure as anything ever devised since Collective Farms.
It is complete Government control over all “emissions” – meaning everything there is that contributes in some way to the economy (everything depends on fossil energy).
It’s the stinkiest, stupidest, means anyone has come up with to demolish the economy in short order, I don’t know about you, but I am not hell-bent on bringing down the US economic system just because a few wacky people have decided that “CO2 is no good in the air.”
I’ll go down fighting against that one, Think, and if my life takes on any meaning, then let it be to stop measures that will produce wrack and ruin over the most baseless “scientific” fraud to come along in a hundred years.
I don’t know if you are a US citizen; if you are, then you pay my salary with your Federal taxes.
I am a civil servant and am proud to say, employed by the US Department of Energy. I’ve been fighting this AGW thing for twenty five years, and I never imagined so many people could possibly be taken in by this horrendous SCAM.
“The Progressive Labor Movement (PLM) and the Progressive Labor Party … … ”
So what? You can demonstrate all sorts of weird things when you draw maps of ‘who’s who’, and where they were half a century ago. People change. The point is to demonstrate political continuity in organisations and ideas. People from the further Left have always joined more moderate organisations, for both ‘normal’ reasons, and for the intention of pulling them in that direction. Exactly the same happens with the Right, and the Republican Party, which no doubt has hosted some equally obnoxious ideas, against the wishes of the mainstream of that organisation. This is to be expected in a two-party system.
As for Chrysler, the use of state resources to prop up failing businesses is not an idea from the Left as such, either.
Cap and trade, as I demonstrated in my previous comment, is a product of conservative thinking. It is the privatisation of things previously understood to be in ‘common ownership’.
You seem to have trouble understanding the concept.
“I believe you’ll have to convince me with another example, because Cap n Trade is about as leftist a measure as anything ever devised since Collective Farms.”
Of course it isn’t. The quotas are not held in common. They are privately owned, and traded, much as land is, in a market ultimately regulated and protected by the state.
“It is complete Government control over all “emissions” – meaning everything there is that contributes in some way to the economy (everything depends on fossil energy).”
No, it isn’t, it’s a quota system that divvies up the ‘natural resources’, much as land.
Go and read Hardin’s paper, it is a conservative idea, through and through.
Comrade Think, I believe you’re just trollin’
(maybe to agitate, possibly for the lack of better things to do)
“Comrade Think, I believe you’re just trollin’”
So you’re not going to read Hardin’s essay, “Tragedy of the Commons”, to see for yourself where the ideas that you object to come from?
Instead, you’d rather speculate about Democrats being crypto-communists, from a position of dire ignorance.
If Democrats really are communists, and really have successfully taken over the home of capitalism – the United States of America… little wonder.
No matter how you put it in a blender and mix it up, Think, Cap and Trade isn’t going to going to come out as some “model of conservative thought.”
The only reason the crypto-Commies haven’t demolished Capitalism in the USA (yet) – despite their efforts – is that there are enough sensible people (left) in the USA.
Freedom isn’t free. The nut jobs out there aren’t going to stop trying to demolish the US economy on their own. They have to be fought.
With as much aggression as they derive from the belief in their “cause.”
Or more.
Think!
I will believe that Obama is a “communist” when he calls for the abolition of private property. There’s some way to go.
That’ll be a little late, I’m afraid. He’s long since affirmed that he himself is the one who wants to “shred the Constitution” by giving people those Constitutionally absent and neglected “positive liberties”, you know, the ones which redistribute all wealth “equally” so as to “equalize” liberty, “liberty” which by the usual definition has nothing to do with taking from someone what they have earned or produced – a.k.a. “own” – and just giving it to someone else, and is instead the opposite of Constitutional Liberty.
But I guess I have to suppose that you don’t think enough to believe what the Islamofascists say either. So there’s that too, regarding the taking of one’s private property – at the very least in their case too.
Brian G Valentine (09:01:16) :
Comrade Think, I believe you’re just trollin’
(maybe to agitate, possibly for the lack of better things to do)
Hey, Brian, I think we might have to acknowledge that some of the Trolls don’t know they are trollin’ in a bad sense, because for them it’s just what they do “naturally”, so no one can really complain that they’re doing only what they can only do to begin with. Maybe we should say, “Good job trollin’, Mr. Troll, you’re operating according to your inherent standard of perfection, your ‘end’, so Aristotle would be quite impressed, too.”
You also said communism is no more, so we know just how much credence to give your latest comments. We can see how you are engaging in the same behavior typical of the communists. You even have the historical revisionism of the Soviet Bolsheviks emulated to its ludicrous extremes. What communists, you ask? We have no stinkin’ communists here! Yeah, right.
Its like the old Soviet joke: “The Great 30 year Soviet Plan makes our future certain, but we never know what will happen yesterday.” The same came be said for the promises of the Obama Administration and the current Labor Government in Britain. Their Marxist one world governance like ambition to control the world economies with cap and trade legislation to combat Climate Change and Global Warming is certain of a coming disastrous future climate, but we never know from one day to the next what will happen to yesterday’s air temperatures, sea levels and ice extents.
Your user name and comments are reminiscent of the hapless adventures of the praporschik in yet another old Soviet joke:
Scene One:
A tree. An apple. An ape [Climate Change Skeptic] comes and starts to shake the tree.
A voice from above: “Think, think!”
The ape [Climate Change Skeptic] thinks, grabs a stick, and hits the apple off.
Scene Two:
A tree. An apple. A praporschik [Climate Change Alarmist] comes and starts to shake the tree.
A voice from above: “Think, think!”
The praporschik [Climate Change Alarmist] says, “No time to think, [the Precautionary Principle of the Party’s social justice protocol says] gotta shake!”.
Maybe I’ll send John Kerry a letter:
Senator Kerry, according to this here paper by Mr Hardin it turns out that you’re not a Communist after all!
That ought to please Senator Kerry mightily.
Enough for today, so long Jim
“No matter how you put it in a blender and mix it up, Think, Cap and Trade isn’t going to going to come out as some “model of conservative thought.””
I’m not saying it’s a *model* of Conservative thought, I’m saying that it’s an example of conservative thought being justified on ecological grounds. It is this idea – the privatisation of ‘common property’ for the purposes of conservation – that leads directly to C&T.
Such an approach is antithetical to communism. That’s not to say that some middle-way / social democratic perspective might want to use C&T. But they ain’t communism either.
“The only reason the crypto-Commies haven’t demolished Capitalism in the USA (yet)…”
… Is quite simply because they don’t intend to. It’s only by tortured conspiracy mongering and intellectual dishonesty that you can turn Democrats into ‘communists’.
“Freedom isn’t free. The nut jobs out there…”
You seem to know a lot about them…
J. Peden. “So there’s that too, regarding the taking of one’s private property ”
But C&T doesn’t take private property, it makes private property.
“some of the Trolls don’t know they are trollin’”
And some conservatives don’t know they are arguing with conservatives.
I don’t call them trolls; I just think they’re stupid/ignorant.
D. Patterson seems to know all about Soviet Jokes, but nothing about what communism actually is.
I said communism is no more, because communism, like capitalism is about ideas to which people buy into. Nobody wants communism. Nobody speaks openly about creating communist institutions. You have to do somersaults to demonstrate crypto communism. It’s not like people are shouting about their “communism” from the rooftops.
There is no communist movement. There are no Communist ideas in circulation. There are a few lonely types who like to pretend. You’ve lost perspective, and a sense of proportion. That’s why you see centrist, possibly third-way ideas as ‘communist’. They are to the Left of where you stand, but in a historical sense, they are much closer to you than Communists are.
“Maybe I’ll send John Kerry a letter:…”
You’d have to read Hardin’s paper first.
Of course, it might possibly cause you to reconsider your conspiracy theory, so I’ll understand if you don’t want to.
Think!
No, it isn’t, it’s [Cap and tax] a quota system that divvies up the ‘natural resources’, much as land.
Then you were saying that Obama doesn’t want to eliminate private property by eliminating Liberty?
And that Cap and tax is really “conservative”? Then you think anyone will take you seriously? But, good work, Mr. Troll, Aristotle himself would be impressed!
Think,
If you want any credibility with me at any rate, please relate your authentic name and affiliation.
Otherwise, just get dismissed as a trollop.
Brian G Valentine
US Department of Energy
Washington, DC
brian.valentine@hq.doe.tgov
“Then you were saying that Obama doesn’t want to eliminate private property by eliminating Liberty?”
I don’t care to speculate about what Obama’s covert plans are. His overt plans aren’t communist, in my view. Let’s stick to cap and trade, for the moment.
Let me try this, because I believe in logic.
1. Hardin proposed the “tragedy of the commons” as an argument for private property.
2. Cap and Trade uses Hardin’s idea to create quotas – private property – which are owned, and may be traded.
3. Communists reject the idea of private property.
4. Obama and the Democrats want to introduce Cap and Trade
5. Therefore, Democrats are not Communists.
Where’s the problem?
“And that Cap and tax is really “conservative”? Then you think anyone will take you seriously?”
Cap and Trade is not currently a Conservative proposition, if by ‘Conservative’ we say “what most republicans want”. However, if we want a perspective on the environment debate that offers any sense of where today’s ideas are *from*, then, anyone who doesn’t take the idea seriously ignores history.
It really is a matter of record that Hardin proposed private property as the solution to environmental problems, and it really is a matter of record that this is the basis of emissions trading schemes, such as C&T. It’s an “inconvenient paper”, if you will.
You may have a well-founded argument against ET/C&T, and a good argument for saying that it contradicts fundamental Conservative principles. Nonetheless, Hardin’s ideas were taken up by conservatives, to argue for private property. That is something than communists simply would not do, because private property is antithetical to communism. Perhaps you, and other Conservatives, make the mistake of seeing any other form of thinking whose appearances you disagree with as “communist”.
Brian, knowing my identity won’t make it any easier for you to understand the argument I’ve been putting forward.
Either it’s true that C&T is based on Hardin’s thought, or it’s not.
And
Either it’s true that Hardin was a Conservative, or it’s not.
You can find out for yourself whether these two things are true. You just have to look.