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.
UK Sceptic (01:00:16) :
“At what point do Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck make their contribution?”
Donal Duck has already made his contribution. A friend showed me a Donald Duck from 1952. In this issue he became “King of America” because he found “The Golden Helmet”.
Being King of America he was asked by a lawyer (in the form of a giant rat) what he wanted to own.
And Donald, that cunning duck, answered ; “I dont want to own anything, except the Air.”
Whereupon he explained to the Lawyer ; “I can tax the air. I sigh for a dollar, a cough for a cent”
We had a good laugh at Donald. Of course it didnt end well…
So Donald was maybe the first contributor. Maybe he was the one planting the meme inside Al Gore’s brain already as a child?
vibenna,
you are right, there is peer reviewed literature: eg. the first name on your list: Gardner et al. , 2003
Long-Term Region-Wide Declines in Caribbean Corals
Toby A. Gardner,1,3 Isabelle M. Côté,1* Jennifer A. Gill,1,2,3 Alastair Grant,2 Andrew R. Watkinson1,2,3
1 School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
2 School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
3 Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Hmmm, UEA, Norwich, Centre for Climate Change Research? I am sorry, but the CRU under the same roof is no good recommendation and given the per Climategate now public corruption of the peer-process – what can we belive and what not? And another name I checked: Hughes, 2003: The Abstract consist of 3 sentences – here a two:
“However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.”
That is politics and not science. (Another paper in SCIENCE) Yes the will be distrust, distrust against persons, institutions and publishers. Not all suspicion is justified, but let us ask, who started the process of blackmailing scepticism.
The UN-IPCC had the obligation to report about the pros and cons. It did not! And to rely heavily on agitprop groups like Greenpeace and WWF should tell everybody that the IPCC is no relyable basis for sound politics.
sammy k (07:18:17) :
where does “green-piece-of-blankety-blank” get its funding from?
The organization does not accept any corporate sponsorships or funds from governments.
Having said that, and not being privy to the actual income statements, It would not rule out donations from foundations or project funding from UN agencies.
Greenpeace funds the CRU
REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? -A
b.poli (09:27:35) :
And another name I checked: Hughes, 2003: The Abstract consist of 3 sentences – here a two:
“However, reefs will change rather than disappear entirely, with some species already showing far greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others. International integration of management strategies that support reef resilience need to be vigorously implemented, and complemented by strong policy decisions to reduce the rate of global warming.”
Yes, I wonder if the AGWers are able to admit that those two sentences are internally self-contradictory, with an unproven non-sequiter thrown in?
Or is it instead all about the alleged “feelings” of the unwashed masses as referenced above by Alan the Brit (09:11:57), but which perhaps might better describe the thought processes of the brilliant AGW propagandists themselves – who seem to think by virture of the wonderous power of their own self-annointment that everyone but them is somewhat retarded – at least as a first approximation?
JLKrueger (04:30:14) :
“Didn’t find any ExxonMobil references for balance…”
On the third day of the Copenhagen meeting ExxonMobil announced their largest acquisiton in the past 10 years.
“Monday, December 14, 2009
Exxon Mobil Corp. announced a $41-billion US deal to purchase natural gas company XTO Energy Inc. in an all-stock transaction Monday.
The move is the latest play in Exxon’s plan to pick up valuable natural gas fields. XTO claims about 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.”
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/14/exxon-xto-natural-gas-takeover.html
XTO is a LNG company. LNG produces less CO2 then Oil when used for transportation and base load electrical generation. Exxon wants a Carbon Tax to go through, they need the tax on coal to make LNG exploration and development more cost competitive. They bet $41,000,000,000.00 dollars on it!
January 13, 2009:
“Exxon Mobil wants Congress to forego the cap-and-trade law it is considering and implement a $20-per-ton “carbon tax” instead. It is the first clear call by the CEO for a price on carbon, writes CNNMoney.com.”
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/01/13/exxon-mobil-to-lawmakers-tax-carbon-dont-use-cap-and-trade/
Exxon SUPPORTS AGW!
I repeat
Exxon SUPPORTS AGW!
Don’t let the warmists tell you otherwise. The warmists don’t actually look at what is really happening, no surprise there.
Max, that video is priceless–thanks for posting that!
Andrew30 (10:01:51) :
“REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? –A”
OK.
At the bottom of this page:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history
From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
It includes:
British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
Irish Electricity Supply Board. ‘LNG, Nuclear’
UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’
World Wildlife Fund, ‘Political Advocates’
Greenpeace International, ‘Political Advocates’
As Yogi Berra purportedly said: “You can see a lot just by looking”
Roger Carr (03:42:10) : “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….)
Regarding the eight glasses a day myth (which everybody wearing Birkenstocks knows is true):
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2002/aug/080802.html
Re: “REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? -A”
If you haven’t noticed yet, I think that the Climate Research Unit is nothing more then an influence laundering organization.
They exist only as a conduit for ‘interested moneys’ fraudulent information to pass from the interested organization to the media. Each party in the chain, be it the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace International, Halcrow Consulting, Risk Management Solutions, the Climate Research Unit or the IPCC each take a cut of the money as they bless the fraudulent information and pass it along on its way to the media. The media simply makes money selling scary news. They all make some money, the ‘interested money’ stands to make the most; be it in profit, taxes or carbon trading fees.
I think if we ever get a chance to look at the financial records of the CRU and investigate the upstream and downstream financial transactions, it will be clear to everyone.
To those that run Watts Up With That,
Do you agree with the conclusions drawn by Laframboise? I only ask in case you posted it here without fully checking out her facts. If the answer is “yes”, how do you respond to the following:
1) Ms. Laframboise writes: “In one section of this Nobel-winning [IPCC] 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). “, but in actuality the report cites Greenpeace as a reference for this sentence: “Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000). ” which is referring to the potential economic impacts of coral reef degradation.
Will you post a correction to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?
2) Ms. Laframboise writes: “Here the [IPCC] report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).” which is misleading since the sentence actually reads: “Technical potential estimates for global CSP vary widely from 630 GWe installed by 2040 (Aringhoff et al., 2003) to 4700 GWe by 2030 (IEA, 2003h; Table 4.2).” Greenpeace does not establish a lower limit it provides a “potential estimate”. There is clearly a difference in meaning between Laframboise’s implication and the actual language used.
Will you post a correction to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?
3) Ms. Laframboise writes: “When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the [IPCC] report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence.” This is the sentence she refers to: “Estimates of current global installed peak capacity vary widely, including 2400 MW (Greenpeace, 2004); 3100 MW (Maycock, 2003); >4000MW generating more than 21 TWh (Martinot et al., 2005) and 5000 MW (Greenpeace, 2006). ” As you can see, Greenpeace is not used as a scientific reference as Laframboise implies, but instead as an example of the many different estimates of “current global installed peak capacity [of solar electricity]”.
Will you post a clarification to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?
4) Ms. Laframboise writes: ” Here [the IPCC] uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the “main wind-energy investments” are located globally (Wind).” She is referring to this sentence: “The main wind-energy investments have been in Europe, Japan, China, USA and India (Wind Force 12, 2005).” The source referenced here is actually a joint paper with credit shared between the Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace. As you can see from the GWEC web page (http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=17), their members are from wind industry associations across the globe so it is unsurprising that they would be used as a reference with regards to the main-wind energy investments.
Will you post a correction to Ms. Laframboise’s statement or encourage her to do so so that your readers aren’t misled?
I’m happy to continue investigation Ms. Laframboise’s writing for errors, but I would appreciate your comments on the above.
[Reply: She has made her post, you have answered it. Readers can make up their own minds. ~dbs, mod.]
JLKrueger (01:59:40) :
John Hooper (01:16:22) :
Couple of questions:
…
2. Am I alone amongst skeptics in wanting to keep an arm’s length from creepy advocacy groups like this?
* * * * *
Here he has a link to Heartland Instiute which has sponsored 3 international conferences on climate change which has included speakers like Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT, Hon. Vaclav Klaus, Ph.D, (economics) who was president of the EU, Apollo 17 Astronaut, Jack Schmitt, Ph.D (geology), IPCC reviewer Dr. Bill Gray, CSU, etc. etc.
Hardly creepy.
I would highly recommend reading the paper of Dr. Lindzen, which exposed the foundation on which Climategate was built, long before it happened:
http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf
Greenpeace funds the CRU
REPLY: Got a link or citation to back that up? -A
I do.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
>>This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International,……………………
“She has made her post, you have answered it. Readers can make up their own minds. ~dbs, mod.”
I was more curious as to whether you felt her post had merit after seeing the multiple errors and lies of omission it contains. This site is viewed as an authority by many and I think most people assume you’ve vetted the links you post on your blog. Do you typically post corrections to posts found to be in error?
Hans Moleman (08:02:15) says:
Hmmm, interesting. So all the trolls who insist that peer-review is what ensures the quality of the “science” are speaking through an unusual orifice.
A few other interesting funders on that list, United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Environmental Protection Agency and World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)
Anybody else starting to see a pattern here?
Hans Moleman (11:04:00) says:
Can you point us to some cases where you have insisted that Real Climate, the CRU and assorted others post corrections to statements or posts that were in error?
Re
Hans Moleman (10:51:27) :
1) Ms. Laframboise writes: “In one section of this Nobel-winning [IPCC] 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). “, but in actuality the report cites Greenpeace as a reference for this sentence: “Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000). ” which is referring to the potential economic impacts of coral reef degradation.
Have you actually read the Pacific in Peril report?
Richard Sharpe (11:12:05) :
“Hmmm, interesting. So all the trolls who insist that peer-review is what ensures the quality of the “science” are speaking through an unusual orifice.”
No, all the trolls who insist a document only has merit if it’s peer-reviewed or that it doesn’t have merit if it’s not are.
“Can you point us to some cases where you have insisted that Real Climate, the CRU and assorted others post corrections to statements or posts that were in error?”
Nope. Does that make it any less wrong for Watts Up With That to stand behind a post riddled with so many problems?
What is your stance on this post?
Hans Moleman (11:04:00) :
“Do you typically post corrections to posts found to be in error?”
I think that would be a service that would be required by believers, skeptics on the other hand will check for themselves if something does not sound right or if they see two conflicting opinions.
Perhaps that is why ‘realclimate.org’ censors the postings on their site; realclimate.org it is for believers, not independent critical thinkers, let alone skeptics.
A C Osborn (11:17:10) :
“Have you actually read the Pacific in Peril report?”
Nope. You can find it here if you’re curious, though: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/science/reports/GR249-CoralBleaching3.pdf
While I agree citing Greenpeace and the WWF is a problem, I just want to point out a factual inaccuracy in her post. Greenpeace is not “the sole source” cited for coral reef degradation even in the specific passage she cites. The passage is on how climate change will effect recreation and tourism and it briefly mentions damaged reefs as an example. The actual passage is below, and you can see there are three citations not just Greenpeace.
“Other likely impacts of climate change on coastal tourism are due to coral reef degradation (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5) (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2000). ”
As you can see it references other sections of the IPCC report, which in term reference other sections of the IPCC report and dozens of peer reviewed studies on reef degradation. The case for reef degradation has virtually nothing to do with Greenpeace, though I do not completely agree with the IPCC opinion on the subject (I think they somewhat underestimate the adaptation hypothesis).
Andrew30 (11:21:50) :
“I think that [posting corrections to posts found to be in error] would be a service that would be required by believers, skeptics on the other hand will check for themselves if something does not sound right or if they see two conflicting opinions.”
So does that mean you checked the above post for errors or that you let it slide because it sounded right to you?
“Perhaps that is why ‘realclimate.org’ censors the postings on their site; realclimate.org it is for believers, not independent critical thinkers, let alone skeptics.”
You seem to be wrong. Just checking their latest post (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/) shows plenty of dissenting opinion. I don’t see any evidence of censorship.
I see other people have noticed what I pointed out as well. Perhaps a correction is in order? Greenpeace was not the “sole citation” at all – that’s a flat out lie by her. She implies the entire case for reef degradation is based on Greenpeace, when IPCC cites literally dozens of major scientific studies on the subject. Usually you all do a pretty good job but sometimes stuff like this gets through. This blog would be much more authoritative if things like this didn’t happen and could be the focal point for a much more impartial informed movement of climate skeptics and moderates. I really wish both sides of this debate would clean up their act and show some intellectual honesty for a change which Ms Laframboise clearly lacks. I’ve always been idealistic, but after the thousands of hours I have spent learning about this subject, it becomes difficult.
REPLY: I’ll check t out -A
Who elected Greenpeace? Who elected the WWF?
These NGOs have no place in taxpayer funded scientific studies. They are entirely political organizations, intent on hijacking the process and diverting resources to their own ends. It is no different than having a fundamentalist religious sect heavily involved in the IPCC. The fact that the UN/IPCC even mentions Greenpeace is another stain on its already soiled reputation.
And anyone who claims that realclimate does not censor skeptical comments is either ignorant or mendacious. There have been numerous posts here over the past few years by people stating that they were repeatedly censored by RC.
Maybe someone at NASA/GISS is getting a little worried now that it has become evident that Schmidt, Mann and the gang have been misappropriating taxpayer funds by running their personal blog during working hours. And not for just a few hours a day, but all day, every day. It’s going to be hard to pretend they weren’t, since every comment is time/date stamped, and the internet never forgets.