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.
If you’re an engineering student, how you expect to “mitigate” “climate change” impacts?
Wind/solar energy? You’ll cause “climate change”, and worse than what would be seen from coal or nuclear, because the base foot print is vastly smaller.
Hydrology/dams?
You can’t DO anything that won’t influence the immediate environment, nothing can be PRODUCED and not influence the surroundings.
Mars, did the dilution of sulfur trioxide in water vapor to produce sulfuric acid clouds have anything to do with “heating” Venus’s atmosphere?
You’ve been reading too many Jim Hansen science fiction novels
Interesting how young people think today.
Too much soap opera on TV produced by people like Laurie David and Al Gore.
I’m old, and “beatniks” at the time hated “pollution” of any variety (even more than they hated “work”).
Most of them kind of grew up, and recognized that stuff made out of “plastic” (and things like “medicine”) and having a home with electric lights, and a car, weren’t so darned bad after all.
Environmental News Bulletin from last month:
“Steel industry emissions in the US below Kyoto targets last year!”
Fantastic news.
Steel industry production dropped to 90 M MT last year.
Chinese capacity is 500 M MT per year, and they don’t even USE half.
Environmentalists, before you demolish the USA, you’ll kill me first
Interesting list.
I note that none of the fifteen or so “dodgies” is from WGI, which dealt specifically with the scientific basis – as opposed to impacts, mitigation and adaptation – of/to climate change. Do you have any instances of WGI references to non-peer-reviewed studies?
Not that such materials are illegal: 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.
Such materials might add considerably to the project. For example, the IPCC “Baker” reference (here) – noted above – leads to a 79-page summary of a vulnerability-assessment workshop concerning the North-East Atlantic (here), with 28 scientist attendees, links to 8 major presentations, and 7 pages of references like “Czaja, C. and Marshall, J. 2005. Atmospheric Jet Stream – Ocean Gyre Coupling In The North Atlantic: Observations And Theoretical Interpretation. Submission to European Geosciences Union”. (I just love this stuff . . .)
Perhaps future editions of the IPCC assessment will use simply citations like “non-peer-reviewed but still possibly useful workshop proceedings” or “NPRBSPUWP” where applicable. In the meantime, a lot of interesting science (and, no doubt, the occasional “Himalaya glaciers gone by 2035” fiasco) awaits for anyone willing to take a deep breath before jumping to conclusions . . .
[snip]
[Try again without using “deniers.” ~dbs, mod.]
“Wind/solar energy? You’ll cause “climate change”, and worse than what would be seen from coal or nuclear, because the base foot print is vastly smaller.”
Please cite a study that state that wind/solar are worse than oil/coal.
“Fantastic news.
Steel industry production dropped to 90 M MT last year.
Chinese capacity is 500 M MT per year, and they don’t even USE half.
Environmentalists, before you demolish the USA, you’ll kill me first”
This is NOT from a consequence of any regulation, it IS a consecuence of George W. Bush policy of NON-REGULATION that let banks do whatever they wanted to do, so with the Big Money free to speculate, the economic greed of the speculators destroyed the World Economy.
Without regulation, Capitalism destroys itself. No matter if we are talking about Climate Change, Peak Oil or Mortgage speculation.
Is it clear, Mr. Brian G. Valentine?
Think! (16:34:53) :
“Brian, the facts either to dismiss what I’ve said or prove it are out there. Your tantrum about my anonymity isn’t going to make what I’ve said less true, and it’s only your name you’ll hurt by refusing to listen to reason. ”
The problem is you are making arrogant and pontificating statements of authority without any. You can’t make an attack on a published academic or the legitimacy of their work from behind a veil of anonymity. Who are you that we should listen to anything you have to say?
From what I can tell you are a Neo-Fabian/Neo-Trotskyist type who is running PR interference for the lefts revisionist version of history.
commonsense:
“You believe that the so-called Communist Regimes killed 100 million people?
The Unregulated and Savage Industrial Capitalism is in the right path to kill BILLIONS (and including non-humans, TRILLIONS)!
Defending the actions that will destroy most Life on Earth is the worst thing a living being could do.
You deserve only mercy.
And you will need a lot of it when the System will finally collapse under its own weight (that is, when Climate Change and Peak Oil will destroy Agriculture and Industry)”
LOL… Yes, 100 million deaths from the various socialist movements of the 20th century is well documented (NSWP, CCCP, PRC, Pol Pot, oh, and of course Peru’s Sendero (Shining Path) guerillas… are you a rep for them?
There is no historical record of capitalism causing even one genocide (I’ll note that you seem to suffer from the mental disease of fully capitalising whole words in the middle of sentences frequently as if that makes it sound more important.. you must have studied writing under Gonzalo..
There’s no sign of any collapse, sorry, your, 5th International Comintern Peoples Pushover attempts complete with WWF/Greenpeace disnformation notwithstanding.
Oh, and btw: Global Warming and Peak Oil are mutually contradictory theories. Peak Oilers maintain there is less than 10% of the amount of oil left in the ground that Global Warmers at the IPCC say in their report will be burned to produce their projected warming over the 21st century. Both theories created and promoted by the socialist Club of Rome, btw.
Mike Lorrey:
“LOL… Yes, 100 million deaths from the various socialist movements of the 20th century is well documented (NSWP, CCCP, PRC, Pol Pot, oh, and of course Peru’s Sendero (Shining Path) guerillas… are you a rep for them?
Of course NOT!
By the way,equating CCCP(far-left regime) with Nazi Germany(far-RIGHT regime) only demonstrate that you don’t know anything about history.
“There is no historical record of capitalism causing even one genocide (I’ll note that you seem to suffer from the mental disease of fully capitalising whole words in the middle of sentences frequently as if that makes it sound more important.. you must have studied writing under Gonzalo.”
I am an engineering student and my ideas are completely at odds with the Shining Path ones.
Being concerned about humanity, poor people and the environment instead of profits make you a terrorist?!
By your way of reasoning, Jesus Christ was a terrorist fanatic (“it is more likely that a camel pass in the hole of a Sewing needle than a rich enters in the Kingdom of Heaven”, He said 2000 years ago)
Finally, you want an example of Capitalist Genocide?
Africa, 1880-1960: European Imperialist Powers divided the continent into patches. Tens of millions of Africans died of starvation and disease after being put in near-slavery in labor camps.
Europe 1914-1918: the greed for expanding the economic empire lead to an open war, now known as WWI. 14 Million people were killed. If we include the deaths from WWI-caused civil wars in East Europe and the War-spreaded 1918-1920 A/H1N1 influenza pandemic, the number likely is over 100 Millions.
And of course, WWI aftermath lead to WWII. Another 60 million deaths.
Despite billions of dollars of investment in wind power generation infrastructure worldwide, not one has ever proved itself capable of serving as a reliable base load source of power, much less an ecnomical source versus fossil fuel power plans. The load factors of wind power generators versus cost of construction for the wind farms plus the required network of power distribution systems for load balancing and delivery to base load customers are many times too inadequate in comparison to other power sources.
Acually, it was the Democrats in Congress who imposed a destructive combination of regulatons compelling banks to grant fiscally irresponsible mortgages or face being barred from the marketplace along with derugulation of investment and commercial banks. During the 107th, 108th Congress, and 109th Congress, President Bush tried to stop Nancy Pelosi and Barney Franks from destroying FannieMae and FreddieMac and their suicidal lending practices, but the Democrat majority voted to compel the banks to grant mortgages to buyers utterly incapable of repaying the loans on ballooning real estate prices. This was yet another example of the Democrats implementing the communist Cloward-Piven strategy to deliberately bankrupt, sabotage, and destroy the U.S. economy as a means of ushering in Marxist political doctrines and controls in the false guise of rescuing the very economy they are deliberately destroying.
The Democrats’ manipulations of the U.S. economy has marginalized capitalism to the poin where Democrat criticism of the failings in the U.S. economy are in reality criticisms of the elements of failed Marxist-socialist institutions and policies imposed on the capitalist society. The segments of U.S. society experiencing the greatest inflations of costs and greatest failures to deliver goods and services have been education, healthcare, and unionized industries. The Marxist-socialist takeover of American education, academia, and journalism is now manifesting itslef in the form of postmodern or postnormal science as a fraudulent substitute for the scientific method and real world science. It is no coincidence that so many of the same individuals and organizations who promote AGW alarmism are also promoting Marxist-socialist agendas to deny individuals the right and freedom to speak, communicate, educate, medicate, and otherwise pursue life and happiness in liberty.
The amount of crap being spouted by both sides in this debate demonstrates only one thing. 98% of people are idiots.
I still have not had the Theory of AGW proven to me, but gee whiz some of the garbage like minded people spout is really embarrassing.
Before pontificating and denigrating people without just cause, try going out and getting some of the written evidence facts from the primary sources. For example:
1. Order copies of the Form WBAN-10 manuscripts for each of the days included from stations included in the GISS USCHN, or at least one such station.
2. Read a copy of : Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, The Nation, 1966 May 2.” and/or “Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done.” See in their own words such writings as:
Cloward-Piven strategy for destroying democracy’s voting system:
3. Read Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals.”
You may want to reconsider your comments and apologize for using the derogatory term, “idiots.” At least one side of the argument is generally telling the plain truth, and at least some of the other side frequently knows they are artfully disseminating lies and black propaganda to good effect towards achieving their political goals. Let the readers determine who is telling the truth by looking at the primary evidence. Then you may want to think how your language is going to make yourself look in the eyes of informed readers.
Then again maybe you don’t really care to do so, and the readers can then draw their own conclusions from that as well.
“You can’t make an attack on a published academic or the legitimacy of their work from behind a veil of anonymity. Who are you that we should listen to anything you have to say?”
Of course I can. I’m not making an argument that rests on my authority.
You can *check for yourself with great ease* that that Hardin was a conservative who was mostly aligned with Hayek, and believed that private property in a free market was the answer to ecological problems.
On the matter of Antony Sutton, it is self evident that he lacked academic credibility himself, because it was his views that brought him into collision with the rest of academia. The fact that his ideas are key to several anti-semitic conspiracy theories is easily established with a quick Google of “sutton” and “jew”. You will find links there, if you so desire, to many distasteful political organisations.
My anonymity is owed to the fact that I don’t care to reveal myself to people who seem to share a great deal of their perspective with such organisations. I’m more interested in seeing for myself what might be making such arguments ‘tick’. Thanks for the insight.
“From what I can tell you are a Neo-Fabian/Neo-Trotskyist type who is running PR interference for the lefts revisionist version of history.”
I’m not the one playing fast and loose with historical categories and denying what is a matter of record. And I’m not the one claiming that bankers represent the ‘Left’ to suit some weird theory.
As to my agenda, I can assure you that it is libertarian, and that I work for a Conservative organisation. (No, I’m not going to qualify it. Believe it or don’t, I really don’t care). I am annoyed by people making ridiculous arguments, whatever side of the debate they claim to be on.
The only problem with the idea of the Greenpeace report was un-peer-reviewed is that it was peer-reviewed. It was also written by a series of experts with years of experience and publications in the area. Here are the scientists that are listed on the inside over of the report.
Dr Mahendra Reddy, Lecturer in Development Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
Mr Lionel Gibson, Geography Department, University of the South Pacific, Suva.
Mr Joeli Veitayaki, Coordinator, Marine Affairs Programme University of the South Pacific, Suva.
Hmmm … seems that you need to get the facts right first!
In fact, the list of scientists appears under the heading “Peer Reviewers”! The rest of the story is at my blog.
“Without regulation, Capitalism destroys itself. No matter if we are talking about Climate Change, Peak Oil or Mortgage speculation.
Is it clear, Mr. Brian G. Valentine?”
It is as clear as everything else you have contributed here; but you can blame me (and probably all of your university faculty) for finding you incoherent and unintelligible
I work at a large research center studying coastal change. Most of us are geologists and chemists; there are a few biologists, a few physicists, a couple mathematicians, and a couple statisticians. The only person here who does not think near-term global change (i.e. increased mean temperature, climatic variability, and ocean acidification) is linked the increased concentration of atmospheric CO2 is the handyman who works in the shop. Nobody’s paycheck depends on the results; we get paid and funded regardless of our findings. What makes you people think there is some huge liberal “climate conspiracy”? Get educated, read the primary literature, and then be honest with yourself.
REPLY: You just defined the problem ….of researchers.
When you say condescending things like “you people” your bias shows. -A
Damn straight. I am completely biased against misinformation and untruth. Not every opinion counts, and not every viewpoint is correct. I’m informed enough about climate science to have an opinion that counts about that particular subject. On the other hand, if someone were to ask me a detailed question about installing television equipment or video products, I would have to be honest with myself and admit that is not my field of expertise.
“False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil.” – Plato