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.
Is this new information?
How come the Greenpeace & WWF references are just now coming to light?
New analysis of Boxer-Kerry bill S.1733 by the Heritage foundation is signficantly higher and more detailed than the EPA estimate: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg2365.cfm
——————————————————–
Partial Excerpt:
If the CO2 caps proposed in S. 1733 are enacted, Americans can expect to see the following impacts relative to the baseline case (all dollar values are adjusted for inflation to the 2009 price level):
* GDP will drop by an aggregate $9.9 trillion between 2012 and 2035. On a family-of-four basis, this translates to an income loss of over $108,000–a loss of over $4,500 per year.
* In 2014, employment will drop 365,000 jobs below the expected level and will not recover for the period analyzed. For the entire period analyzed, employment will average 1.4 million jobs below the no-legislation level. In some years, the employment deficit will exceed 2.5 million jobs.
* Household net worth will take continual hits. For the average year, it will be $2.1 trillion below baseline. On a family-of-four basis, the cumulative loss in net worth will exceed $40,000 by 2030.
* Gasoline prices will rise by 45 percent.
* Residential electricity prices will rise by 72 percent.
* Relative to the baseline, the higher prices will force families to cut gasoline consumption by more than 12 percent, natural gas consumption by 23 percent, and electricity consumption by 29 percent. But these cuts will not be enough to offset the higher prices completely, and a family of four will see its total energy spending rise by more than $1,000 per year by 2035–a total increase in energy expenditure of more than $16,000 between 2012 and 2035.
Conclusion
The cuts in CO2 emissions outlined in S. 1733 are severe, reaching 83 percent below the 2005 level in 2050. In turn, these caps force severe reductions in energy use and economic activity. This analysis ends in 2035, at which point the caps on emissions are 52 percent below the emissions of 2005.
In spite of the best attempts by households and businesses to adjust to these caps, the ensuing higher energy costs impose extraordinary losses on the economy. Income losses total to nearly $10 trillion and job losses exceed 2.5 million.
By 2035, the next generation of families can expect to suffer a loss in net worth of $30,000 to $40,000; income losses exceeding $8,000 per year; energy cost increases of over $1,000 annually; and ashare of the national debt that will have risen by more than $27,000.
All of these costs plus the additional costs for the years beyond our analysis will moderate world average temperatures by no more than nine hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than three tenths of a degree in 2100.
Bin Laden deplores climate change.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/20101277383676587.html
“The climate bible”
If that is how they frame it, it is a religion. The IPCC report has a lot of falsehoods. Must be a false religion. It of course admits to false prophesies now. Glaciers gone by 2035
Slightly OT – Now the authority in Global warming is saying that global warming is caused by the developed nations – If Bin Laden says it he is in good company with other “world” leaders
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/environment/2010-01-29-bin-laden-global-warming_N.htm?csp=34
William Gray (02:16:53) :
“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.”
William, this is my field.
Those papers are just as buggered up.
Bridget-HS
Watching Question Time last night, I was struck by the almost silent reception that Lord Lawson’s comments received. Whilst a substantial number of people in the UK are apparently unconvinced by the AGW case, the warmists have managed to embed serious doubts into the minds of a considerable majority of the public, many of whom think it may be “better to be safe than sorry” -at almost whatever the cost. There is still a huge mountain to climb to get a proper open-minded and honest public debate on the issues.
For any Warmists who are still sitting on the fence.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-01-29/india-food-rising-prices.html#
I think it’s OK to cite gray literature, as long as it merely fills in the gaps or adds supporting evidence to what is already well established. As long as too much reliance isn’t placed on it, it can be a useful supplement. But it shouldn’t be the only or the major source cited, and any “far out” claims it makes should be presented carefully. E.g., the AR should handle it with tongs by bracketing it with distancing words like, “One article in the gray literature even states …”
——-
Don’t be too certain. If alarmism continues to unravel for a year or so, and it becomes clear that it is a lost cause, some really startling stuff may emerge from low-level insiders.
A candidate for Pachauri’s position?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHCO002.html
William Gray (02:16:53) :
William-
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a proud denier of a theory that was decided upon decades ago by a small group of politicians and social justice advocates and has ever since sought to use bogus “science” to bolster that theory. Every single day, yet another piece of that science is proven to be based on lies, manipulated date and advocacy group fairy tales. The simple fact that advocates of this theory have used bullying, lies and subterfuge to try and ram this “science” into accepted gospel should give any sane person pause.
AGW has never been about science. It is a socio-political agenda that used willing scientists and fellow travelers to fortify that agenda. The same people who have been driving this agenda since before the original Stockholm conference are still behind it, still packing the IPCC and NGO’s like Greenpeace and WWF with their cronies to create the patina of consensus and are still the same far left politicians they’ve always been. If people would spend half the time they have looking into the science of AGW looking into the background of this movement it would have been obvious to all long ago. AGW science is a symptom, not the disease and while I am all for treating the symptoms, this won’t end until the disease is killed.
AGW is a scam, always has been a scam, and I am proud to deny it.
@ur momisugly John Hooper (01:16:22) No you aren’t alone in being sceptical about the intentions of some of the people and organisations trying to lead the sceptics. Its common practice for those in power to want to control both sides but I think people are now wise to it. Its common sense to be suspicious really if dodgy groups funded by oil, tobaco companies and mainstream media (who can’t exactly be trusted) are trying to take the lead. They could well be controlled opposition.
What i think is, support them (but not exclusively) as long as they are going where you want to them to go and then drop them as soon as they diverge or hold back. If they are supported exclusively then there will be little organised opposition left when they do diverge. People should bear in mind that the British secret services have been recruiting from Oxford and Cambridge Universities for many years and putting their people in the media.
Of course this doesn’t mean that you can’t trust anyone from Oxford or Cambridge but if you are faced with an oil company connected wannabe leader who has had training in journalism, was or is linked to a main political party or to governement and is a Oxford or Cambridge graduate then its not unreasonable to not trust such a person to have too much control and influence.
You have to give credit to Donna Laframboise
for listing the IPCC suppliers of “science”
GREENPEACE-generated literature in 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..
More dodgy citations in the Nobel-winning climate report (WWF-generated literature)
>> Time magazine’s controversial glacier expert
>> Green time capsule: 1970 eco ideas not pretty
>> Climate psychics: 10-year-old UK snow prediction fails miserably
Created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by Nobel-winning IPCC report:>/b>
•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
Donna says:
“I’ve only spent a few hours tracking these down, so there may be more.”
Check out Donna’s website here:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/
vibenna,
There is more to political climatology than merely having a WWF or Greenpeace patch sewn onto your duffel bag or monthly contributions to the same. As an example here’s Professor Neil Adger’s own “Research Interests” as posted on his page at the University of East Anglia:
“Social and ecological resilience; ecological economics; institutional economics; participatory decision-making; climate change adaptation, vulnerability, equity and justice.”
Just a guess but he’ll NEVER be a skeptic, science be damned. Just another guess, your listing is full of others in this very same camp. Sure is a small circle given the total number of research scientists in the same fields across this globe of ours. I wonder if they know each other by sight, sound and hand shake?
I’ve often commented to AGW’ers that “You learned everything you know about climate from An Inconvenient Truth, and everything you know about dinosaurs from The Land Before Time.”
Maybe I haven’t been that far off!?!
A co-worker” daughter just got dressed down in front of her entire science class in high school by a “science” teacher who was offended that she questioned global warming. He pointed out that the science is settle.
Isn’t “science is settled” an oxymoron?
P Gosselin (02:19:26) :
“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.”
This is only the list of peer reviewers for WG3, but you’ll see Exxon show up a number of times: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/453.htm
I have a feeling that compliant climate scientists are even now churning out study upon peer reviewed study to prop up every single outrageous paper from Greenpeace and WWF…. Just watch… It’s already happening… If we don’t kill the IPCC and the UN soon, AR5 will be the perfect screed with every citation backed up by well oiled peers….
It’s funny how the ad-words adverts on WUWT are usually for lowering carbon emmission etc… :-). [I know it is because of the way that ad-words works, but it is funny. I wonder if neo-Nazi sites get adverts for visits to a Kibutz or something!]
I wonder at what point leaders and celebrities will start to feel ashamed at being associated with this chicanery?
Lord Monkton interview with Greenpeace apologist. She refused to check data but insists Greenpeace do it for her.
Romm, Hansen, Mannn and a few other apologists rail against climatologists and meterologists but praise Greenpeace with is even many times more innadequate.
Jeff T:
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).
Of course what people fail to recognize is that the amount of NF3 that makes it into the atmosphere is extremely small (<1 ppmv of NF3 produced). It is almost entirely consumed in the etching process. As far as being poisonous, well it's not so much toxic as it is highly corrosive. Get it on your hand and it will eat through it in a matter of minutes unless you put a special calcium rich lotion on it that neutralizes it. Imagine what that would do to your lungs.
LMAO……So this is probably why the AGW crowd went out and got a different advocate. We all know it is the western developed nations creating all of warming out there. The bastion of truth and science is now telling us who is really to blame. Bin Laden Blames U.S. for Global Warming in New Tape!!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584249,00.html
Perhaps UBL will be in the next IPCC report.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
“Concerned about the speed of global warming?
About food, water and energy scarcity – the effects of overpopulation on a plundered planet?
About the UK’s failure to stabilise its own population?
Support the Optimum Population Trust
Support research into optimum population sizes
Campaign for a lower population in the UK.
Read the report: Fewer emitters, lower emissions, less cost by Thomas Wire.”
Another blow for the team http://bushynews.com/?p=23.
I see also that Bin Laden has got into the act.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html?ref=world
From the “You have got to be kidding me” dept.:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584249,00.html
CAIRO — Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.
In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.
Bin Laden has mentioned climate change and global warning in past messages, but the latest tape was his first dedicated to the topic. The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, could be an attempt by the terror leader to give his message an appeal beyond Islamic militants.
Seriously, this news report screams for it’s own thread.
I have no doubts about what Bin Laden would like see happen to freedom and prosperity in America.
I just never thought I would see the day Climate Change alarmism and a terrorist mouthpiece would both be on the same page.