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

You guys are just making alot of noise for the sake of it. It really discredits you
Here is the author’s bio for the main Greenpeace “generated” report:
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is a professor at the University of Queensland. He is a leading coral biologist whose study focuses on the impact of global warming and climate change on coral reefs eg coral bleaching. As of October 5, 2009, he had published 236 journal articles, 18 book chapters and been cited 3,373 times.
Note that this report is published by Greenpeace–but not wriiten by Greenpece staff.

Mod could you fix that last url http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html?ref=world

A few commenters are pointing out (a) that there are SOME genuine peer-reviewed scientific articles cited in the IPCC material on coral reefs and (b) one should deal with information, not dismiss it because of the source.
I agree wholeheartedly with the basic thought on both counts, but let’s be clear:
(a) The IPCC’s mandate is to produce policy-relevant summaries of the best possible science using ONLY information appearing in peer-reviewed scientific literature. So regardless of how many genuine sources are used, these pieces cited throughout makes the whole IPCC process suspect as an exercise in bait-and-switch. It is not what it is sold as being, and borders on all-out fraud.
and (b) I agree that one should play the ball, not the player. But that is precisely what skeptical sites like WAWT, Audit, etc. are doing, as a whole. Yet they keep getting dismissed out of hand by “insiders” who can’t even properly represent what the skeptical arguments are — it’s not that they aren’t playing the ball, they have no idea where the ball is! But the nature of the debate has been the skeptical side publicizing good summaries of known science like Eschenbach’s recent piece here on coral reefs that show the emperor has no clothes, and the only coherent response we get from alarmists is that “Kajillions of scientists disagree so you must be wrong”. But when the kajillions of scientists turn out not to be scientists at all, and there is no counterbalancing science, only advocacy, with which to respond, then at some point you’ve got to blow the whistle and say “Okay, this is no response to the skeptical side” and send someone to the penalty box.
I’ve no problem giving a full hearing to someone regardless of source, but I do not have infinite patience to hear out alarmism by organizations like Sea Shepherd, WWF and Greenpeace, who pull dangerous stunts on the high seas, break national and international laws, and the basic human rights of those they hope to marginalize, and whose record over many decades has been to produce vitriol that appears to flow quite independently of any scientific source. At some point you’ve got to say “okay, I’ve listened long enough, I no longer have time for your nonsense!” For me, that was decades ago for Greenpeace.
If you’re interested in seeing what playing the player instead of the ball looks like, check out the alarmist site Only In It For the Gold, where Michael Tobis unleashes endless vicious ad hominem against any skeptics who raise their voice (his most recent was a long diatribe against Freeman Dyson, whom he apparently considers a geriatric buffoon), and opens threads on what names one should call “denialists”, regularly bans commenters who argue a point too vociferously, or anyone claiming scientific credentials but arguing against “the consensus”. He commonly responds to his visitors’ assertions of fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about because they clearly aren’t scientists, and loudly touts his own PhD (he’s a software engineer doing climate modelling). But he has the temerity to chide his visitors “I only post comments I consider constructive and interesting…you should make an attempt to be polite…I am not censoring you, I am creating something I (and others) find interesting. That is…If you want to be rude, contentious or incoherent, there’s plenty of other internet for you to play in.”
OT: Check out the faces of these three well-known Democrats, who appear to GET THE JOKE.

where does “green-piece-of-blankety-blank” get its funding from?

What’s next? Are we going to find PETA references in IPCC AR4? It would not surprise me.

This is crazy, They are going to and pass legislation based on this report.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R6YF20100128?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29

I have to post this, partly because I am a geologist by profession and can immediately see a huge number of logical inconsistencies in the report and partly just for the “WTF?” factor.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/earthquakes.htm
Please try to make sure you are not drinking your tea when you read this as I will not be held liable for damage to keyboards.

MJK (07:04:13) :
Note that this report is published by Greenpeace–but not wriiten by Greenpece staff.

Like DUH!
Gee, don’t think we coulda figured this one out without your help! Thanks for pointing it out.
Piffle!

But Greenpeace *is* peer-reviewed. Look e.g. at this peer who is reviewing other peers from the top:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/seasia/en/photosvideos/photos/greenpeace-climber-m-ediandre.jpg

So, Mr/Ms vibenna gets pulled over, doing 100 in a fifty zone.”But look,” s/he says, “I stopped at the red light back there and signalled my left turn.”

Gail Combs (03:24:56) :
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?
No! I must confess my ignorance on that part, although I am not at all surprised to hear it. This AGW is nothing more than Marxist Socialism by the back door. They couldn’t seize the means of production using politics, they then collapsed at the fall of the Soviet Union, so they needed another stick to beat the western democracies with. They found that stick in Global Warming. Their tactics have been devised as follows:-
“Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (…) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (…) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (…) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. …
Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (…) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (…) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula. ” An extract from a book called Meinkampf by some bloke called Adolf Hilter, I understand its circulation had dropped for a while, but over the last 20 years it has undergone something off a resurgance throughout the environmetal movement!
I know it’s not National Socialism we’re dealing with, but the environemtalist extremists are not shy of borrowing tactics from the past!

Could we just say that the IPCC is a “peerless group?”