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.
North has more today on non-peer-reviewed work in IPCC – on “Amazongate”:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html
“The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication.”
The Nobel Prize winning IPCC, indeed. Perhaps the IPCC is in line for winning the Ignobel Prize as well. It would be a first, I know, but there’s a first time for everything.
How can I nominate them?
When I began in High School, one of the rites of passage was to go to the local radio shop and buy the components to build a ‘Crystal set’, a small and rudimentary wireless set that required one to carefully adjust a wire ‘whisker’ against a lump of crystal and find the optimum point to to clamp an alligator clip to a copper wire coil and thus complete the circuit and receive, if one had reasonable luck, some faint and scratchy radio transmissions that we listened to on surplus WWII headphones. This was the first radio set in our house, as my father hated the then overwhelmingly popular C&W music! He did encourage us to read newspapers and books, so he wasn’t anti-knowledge, just genuinely and almost completely tone deaf.
Now, as a grandfather and retired from one of my professions, although still working at the other, I enjoy the internet and see it as probably the most powerful tool the world has seen for the uncovering of untruth and the promotion of justice for world citizens. Those of us who cherish these things owe a huge debt to Anthony Watt and his cohort who labour so diligently – thanks to all of you!
That reminds me of Wilde’s witticism:
Yet another denialist website/blog to bookmark!
John Blake (20:38:32) :
John,
Let’s quit beating around the bush. Tell us how you really feel about the UN.
Alexander (03:27:07) : When I began in High School, one of the rites of passage was to go to the local radio shop and buy the components to build a ‘Crystal set’ […] adjust a wire ‘whisker’…
Cats whisker, Alexander… cat’s whisker. Oh for the days when those were high-tech and I could build them! It’s been downhill for me ever since…
The WWF is the Scientology of environmentalism.
Or worse.
Combining the massive melting predicted by IPCC and the Goracle with the completely tasteless WWF picture; wouldn’t that part of Manhattan be under water?
Ten “facts”:
http://www.actoncopenhagen.decc.gov.uk/en/ambition/achievements/december/copenhagen-pub-quiz/
US WWF 2008 Annual Report
Operating revenues grew to $196.5 million, a 22 percent increase over the FY07 total of $160.8 million.
We received $85.7 million from our members and donors, $26.1 million in government awards, $19.3 million from foundations, $14.6 million from other WWF Network organizations, $10.1 million from corporations, and $40.7 million in other revenues,
http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/financialinfo/2008fundingandfinancialoverview.html
And they say sceptics are well funded.
The difference between the World Wrestling Federation and the World Wildlife Fund is that the World Wrestling Federation is real.
A WWF link not so far mentioned is that Robert Napier, Chairman of the Board of the UK Met Office (responsible for the ‘Had’ part of the ‘HadCRU’ temperatue series) was previously Chief Executive of WWF-UK.
Mark T (00:02:07) :
Mark,
I’m with you. Has anybody actually read this thing? And if not, why was the story accepted without any critical analysis from anyone in the media? Why was it just assumed to be valid? When will the media step up and do their mea culpa?
That plane image is truly remarkable and encapsulates the greenie message in its entirety.
Disdain for humankind
Apologists for terrorism (both hate the western world)
Alarmist
Message of hate veiled under a ‘good cause’
Speaking of carbon trading…
You hear of tons of carbon and you hear of tons of CO2. Sometimes you hear them termed interchangeably. If they are selling tons of CO2 they are basically selling us on earth the air, or at least the oxygen in the air, that every being on this earth owns.
Are they then selling the earths air also in these carbon trades?
And since the oxygen in the CO2 will eventually, through chemical reactions powered by the sun over years, maybe unknown to current science, be freed back to the atmosphere, are they selling us the sun also?
I am curious.
So it really is all a pile of garbage, from top to bottom.
Those of us that previously “noticed” such malarkey were mostly written off as conspiracy theorists in the pay of big whatever. Which leads naturally to this….
The best “shot/poisoned/S(ingle)O(ccupant)F(atal)C(rash)’ed themselves in suspicious circumstances” or suchlike. It puts others off.
I am afraid that this ripple in the blogosphere will not divert the good ship Carbon Trading built in Goldman Sachs’ shityard. Some casualties are to be expected, none of whom will lose their ill-gotten Oscars/companies/Nobels/cash. Nothing will be allowed to pop this bubble until they choose to do it.
Keep an eye out for the seeds of the next bubble which are invariable flagged, while sown, as the previous fiasco disintegrates, as usual, without the “massive loss of” life/money/time/etc, touted at its inception. The carbon trading bubble was created on the day that Clinton revoked the Glass-Steigall act – Al and all the big players were in the room.
But what do I know? I am just a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
Question everything that this uncaring machine has tried to embed within our minds and our society. The only thing they hate more than you is your capacity to reproduce and your willingness to do so.
Wonder is she lives close by Steve McIntyre on Toronto?
It would make it easy for the Nobel Committee when they award them a Peace Prize for exposing the seething mass of corruption, lies and political fraud that is being passed off a as Science by the IPCC.
Well gee, That kinda leaves me out. I fear I haven’t laid an egg in 10 years or so. Besides, if I had a baby Leprechaun now, who would hold my cane whilst I hold my baby?
“K. Bray in California, High up, USA (19:04:15) :
That’s the first time I have seen that image of NYC with the airplanes and I feel like vomiting… Who are these guys???!!!”
To be fair to the WWF read this
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-wwf-runs-a-really-stupid-advertisement-2009-9
OT, but on page… What is up with the sunspots graphic. Stripes? What do sunstripes indicate? Is that was caused the ice age?
/when fixed, what you will not see is it looks like a picture of the sun through ventian blinds.
Apparently putting in data from 1200KM away is cool for NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=248
“you can use numbers from the nearest available stations, as long as they are within 740 miles (1,200 kilometers). Overall, this gives the GISS product more complete coverage of the Earth’s polar regions.”
If NASA says this can be done, I would suggest using Meacham’s station for all of Oregon as well as Washington and Idaho. There would be a run on hot chocolate if they did. If a warm-biased fill-in can be used, then just to satisfy us flat-earthers, use a cold biased one now and then.
It’s a real shame these institutions are so far from the good they could do. There are few (maybe two) studies on extinction and species diversity yet WWF and the like seem to not bother putting money into actual on the ground research. It would be a huge job and might produce results they would not like. Just lies, half truths and innuendo for now, which seems the norm in this modern day and age.