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.
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.
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) 😕
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.
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/
“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.
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.
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…
Follow the money:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100129/D9DHC2380.html
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/
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.
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.)
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?
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?
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)
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:
Any more stupid comments?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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:
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.”
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
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.
“obama on the “consensus” of agw…”
everybody laughes
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.