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

Donna Laframboise, who gave us the list of World Wildlife Fund non peer reviewed studies cited in the IPCC AR4 continues to make lists. Here’s her latest list. Those calm, rational, thoughtful folks at Greenpeace seem to have had a significant hand in the IPCC climate bible.

She writes:

Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.

Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace – an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)

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). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).

Read more at her blog here. In the meantime, here’s the list:

GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC REPORT

* Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands

* ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK

* Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07

* Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam

* GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07

* Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.

* Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.

* Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07


Sponsored IT training links:

Join 310-065 online training to pass NS0-154 exam in easy and fast way. Just download the JN0-202 dumps, study it and pass the real test on first try.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Nik Marshall-Blank

Ah…. hmmmm…. but….
Excepting this(these) 1 (2),(3),(4),(5),(6)….. error (errors) the rest of the report is completely sound.
So…..
Keep giving us dosh from the public purse.
Hey….. what’s the matter with you….?
We’re Scientists!!!!!!

Gary Hladik

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

Peter of Sydney

Using their own rules to describe a “scientist” we can say there are millions of “scientists” who dispute the AGW thesis. I’m sick of the IPCC using administrators, editors, bureaucrats, pencil pushers, etc. as “scientists”. I thought it was discovered last year that the actual number of real scientists who reviewed the relevant section of the IPCC 4 report was around 60, and most of them made comments saying they disagreed with the findings.

MangoChutney

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

Doug in Seattle

Does EPA have a hope in hell of surviving its rushed endangerment finding given all these revelations?
I wonder if Vegas is giving odds?

Konrad

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.

Boudu

Gary Hladik says:
January 29, 2010 at 12:28 am
In 5th grade my daughter did a report on the rain forest. I’m wondering now if it’s also cited by the IPCC.
Good news Gary. The IPCC have just offered your daughter the soon to be vacant post of IPCC Chairperson. They cite her in depth knowledge of environmental topics as ample qualification for the post.

vibenna

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

Leon Brozyna

First WWF, now Greenpeace. Perhaps that is what was meant in the leaked emails when it was suggested to change the meaning of peer reviewed.

UK Sceptic

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

Christoph

You’ve got to be friggin kidding me — and I assure you I don’t mean to use the word “friggin” — Greanpeace?

Christoph

*Greenpeace even

Alan the Brit

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? Or are some of the same people who wrote the papers in the IPCC? No, surely not, the UN IPCC is a completely independent scientific body established by global governments, its work is done by 2,500 scientists, reports are done by 400 lead authors, assisted by 850 co-authors, reviewed line by line by 140 governments & their specialists, etc. They missed the fact that the meltic Himalayan glacias was wrong. They missed the fact that there was no eviedence of an increase in hurricane activity. They missed the bit about no link to adverse weather pattern increases. They aren’t that smart where I am looking from!
Clearly nobody actually read anything in the reports or these loons should have spotted something. It’s crap!

Alan the Brit

Sorry that should read “melting”.

MangoChutney (00:29:57) :
Are we sure these articles, originally printed in the Greenpeace literature are not peer reviewed, publish and actually have merit?

Methinks Greenpeace publishing studies in their own publications pretty much rules out “proper” peer-review…whatever that may be these days.

John Hooper

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.

Craigo

If you wanted to railroad this stuff into publication, clearly a Railway Engineer was a good choice to lead the charge.

J.Peden

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.

JeffT

Konrad,
Another item that is the by-product of Silicon PV cells is Nitrogen Tri-Fluoride NF3,
besides being a poisonous substance it is supposed to be 17,000 more effective GHG than CO2 (is supposed to be).
It is the result of the laser etching process that forms the PV cell from the raw poly-crystalline wafer.
A link to what appears to be an authoritive site :
http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/nitrogen-trifluoride-as-an-anthropogenic-greenhouse-forcing-gas/

David Harrington

I fail to be surprised by any new relevaltion now.

Peter of Sydney

General question. How long can an organization like the IPCC continue to function at all with all these revelations coming almost daily of mistakes, misinformation, breaking their own rules, etc.? If the IPCC was a commercial entity the directors would be in court by now fighting for their own survival.

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.

Max

I think Lord Monckton summed up Greenpeace nicely in one interview.

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.

P Gosselin

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.

Capn Jack

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.

Baa Humbug

Started off as a trickle, now it’s a tropical downpour.
Climate Witness in Fiji: developing a generalizable method for assessing vulnerability and adaptation of mangroves and associated ecosystems
Francis Areki and Monifa Fiu
WWF Fiji Country Programme, 4 Maafu Street, Suva. Private Mail Bag, GPO, Suva, Fiji.
Tel: (679) 3315533 Fax: (679) 3315410
Email: fareki@wwfpacific.org.fj, mfiu@wwfpacific.org.fj
ABSTRACT
Climate change (CC) and its impacts are gaining momentum
which threatens the integrity and security of Pacific Island nations’
natural ecosystems, economies and way of life that is intricately woven
into the ocean, forests and the land.
The above is from an IPCC sponsored meeting in Denarau Island Nadi, Fiji
20-22 June 2007
The paper is titled IPCC TGICA Expert Meeting Integrating Analysis of Regional Climate Change and Response Options Meeting Report. You can get the pdf version from the IPCC site 280 pages.
Does the above help you vibenna (00:48:45) 😕

Gail Combs

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!

Greenpeace? Greenstrife more likely. Their reports are seldom scientific and any science they do contain should be treated with the greatest caution.

Gail Combs

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/

KeithGuy

“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”
Only if you get her 5th grade friends to peer review it.

Leigh

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.

Sordnay

vibenna (00:48:45) made a good point there.
“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” ”
For gods shake, that section is “6.4.2.6 Recreation and tourism”, seems to me just by the section name that it might not be very scientific at all.
On the other hand I’m sure that divers could be a lot of stress for coral, maybe warm waters attracts more divers that stress coral? I’m thinking about appliying for funds to study this issue…

R.S.Brown
Gail Combs

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? http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040402_20030611_Riggs.pdf

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/

Roger Carr

John Hooper (01:16:22) : 2. Am I alone amongst skeptics in wanting to keep an arm’s length from creepy advocacy groups like this?
As an AWG sceptic, John, I feel this one small segment of the Heartland Institute is upholding the right to question. This is important in our overall freedoms, and essential to all progress. Consider: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” To brand them a “creepy advocacy group” is demeaning; not least to we sceptics.

Overview: Tobacco and Freedom (The Heartland Institute)
“Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit. But today’s taxes and bans go far beyond a reasonable public policy response to a public health problem. Bast asks for a reasoned debate that respects the rights of smokers and the owners of bars and restaurants.”

This Institute is a considerable force in debunking the fallacy of AGW. They have balance.
(And I plead to not drinking eight glasses of water a day; and of being a heavy tobacco smoker for over half a century.)

Bridget H-S

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?

► Reality Check

Remember the site all the AGW sycophants keep quoting:
http://whois.domaintools.com/skepticalscience.com
run by a cartoonist who fails to mention it on his main web site:
http://www.sev.com.au/
“Other sites I do:
CriciWiki
Party Templates
A Time To Laugh Christian Cartoons
Party Invitations
Cricket Blog”
http://wiki.sev.com.au/About-Us
“John Cook
A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia”
I wonder who is really funding it?

keith in Hastings UK

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)

Capn Jack (02:26:51) :
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.

Clearly it is you who’ve had one too many. John Hooper offered no dates. I did, in response to his comment. If you have an issue with Science publishing something with today’s date on it, you need to take it up with them. I cited the referrence correctly.
Rather making asinine comments, you could simply go to their web site at http://www.sciencemag.org and look up the Vol number (327) (the current volume) which you will find has a publication date of 29 January 2010.
The full link to the article is: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5965/510
The reference header of the piece reads:

Science 29 January 2010:
Vol. 327. no. 5965, pp. 510 – 511
DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5965.510

Any more stupid comments?

Robert of Ottawa

Mango Chutney.
It wouldn’t make a lot of difference if these “papers” were “peer-reviewed”. As climategate e-mails show, the “peer-review” process has been corrupted; to the point that only politically acceptable articles are even considered for peer-review.

Roger Carr

Reality Check (03:48:21) : Remember the site all the AGW sycophants keep quoting … run by a cartoonist who fails to mention it on his main web site.
Check further, Reality, he and his wife operate a business designing websites… like for a living… aka “day job”. I do not think they do judgemental frowns and growls; nor should they.

Hans Moleman

“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.

Gail Combs

At this rate I think it is time to nominate the Nobel prize for the Darwin award: http://www.darwinawards.com Al Gore, Obama and the IPCC. Yes the Nobel Prize committee is certainly making an all out effort to win a Darwin Award.

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.”

FergalR

Do the new NOAA one please, clouds are my favourite, and it’s fun to see scientists pretending to be baffled by something a Danish guy suggested a decade ago, thanks:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html

Jack

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.

Chris


“obama on the “consensus” of agw…”
everybody laughes

Henry chance

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.