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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!!!!!!
In 5th grade my daughter did a report on the rain forest. I’m wondering now if it’s also cited by the IPCC.
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.
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
Does EPA have a hope in hell of surviving its rushed endangerment finding given all these revelations?
I wonder if Vegas is giving odds?
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.
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.
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
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.
At what point do Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck make their contribution?
You’ve got to be friggin kidding me — and I assure you I don’t mean to use the word “friggin” — Greanpeace?
*Greenpeace even
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!
Sorry that should read “melting”.
Methinks Greenpeace publishing studies in their own publications pretty much rules out “proper” peer-review…whatever that may be these days.
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.
If you wanted to railroad this stuff into publication, clearly a Railway Engineer was a good choice to lead the charge.
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.
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/
I fail to be surprised by any new relevaltion now.
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.
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.
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.
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.