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.
Andrew P (12:26:35) :
Usually you all do a pretty good job but sometimes stuff like this gets through.
In this debate, it is inevitable that mistakes are made. However, kudos go to the debaters that encourage insight and analysis like yours that help to get the truth out. if both sides were allowing this openness and review, this would not be much of a debate. However, it seems that those questioning AGW are the ones that promote constant review and criticism (when warranted), that ensure their data stays as pure as possible.
I know I do appreciate it. Thank you for your vigilence.
Smokey (12:56:27) :
“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.”
All I can look at is the evidence in front of me and there were a ton of dissenting comments in the post at Realclimate that I looked at, contrary to the claim I was responding to that said RC didn’t allow independent thinkers or skeptics to post.
Almost every blog does some culling of their posts. Perhaps WUWT is an exception, but I know Climateaudit.org frequently removes posts they deem to be off-topic, angry, piling it on, etc. Without knowing the content of the alleged posts that were censored, it’s hard to say whether their removal by the RC mods was appropriate or not.
Smokey (12:56:27) :Not even V.Putin could stop NGO’s from meddling in internal affairs, anything against them is considered against human rights.
I mean I assume she says Greenpeace is the only citation because the other two citations were other sections of the IPCC report (Box 6.1; Section 6.4.1.5). But those sections contain dozens of other independent citations. It’s just not honest of her to imply there’s no other evidence of coral degradation. The citing of the WWF is a big enough problem already.
On a side note, I do a radio show on weather and climate, and this site has been of enormous help to me. My co-host and I feature content from here all the time. Definitely will be discussing the GISS extrapolation of coastal stations on my next show. I love this site and often plug it on air!
Rajendra (choo choo) Pachauri. Toot the whistle on your gravy train a little louder.
Keep Green peace on the band wagon and you may have a chance. They provide good pictures and emotional arguments.
Hans Moleman (13:21:06) , RC allows dissenting posts it can answer. It censors posts that it can’t refute or presents good arguments that question AGW. Do you know who funds RC?
Of course it’s peer-reviewed. The IPCC “scientists” and the activists from GreenPeace and WWF are peers.
Richard M (14:21:36) :
“RC allows dissenting posts it can answer. It censors posts that it can’t refute or presents good arguments that question AGW.”
Where’s your evidence of this. In the post I linked to above there appears to be a lot of healthy debate.
“Do you know who funds RC?”
Fill me in.
Mild, MILD in comparison; the non-appearance of posts at RC are LEGENDARY …
.
.
Google can be your friend
First up: Rejected … by RC!
.
.
Retry …
Google can be your friend (Search: “RC censorship”)
First up: Rejected … by RC!
.
.
“Hans Moleman (12:20:50) :
[…]
I don’t see any evidence of censorship.”
What a funny statement to make. You mean, no blackened sentences?
Link: A telling omission by Real Climate
Quote: “We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.
It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. ”
and:
“Steve McIntyre started ClimateAudit on [Oct 26th 2004].”
“RealClimate.org was registered November 19th, 2004”
.
.
Sorry, dear, they are unqualified (vis-a-vis ‘accidental removal’) for that nomination … I now quote the requirements for nomination from the very website you linked to:
“The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of
the human genome by honoring those who
accidentally remove themselves from it …”
.
.
>>It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group.
It really amazes me that even though this climate cabal has been in place since Stockholm and the same far left people who started this ball in motion are still involved how few people seem to have connected the dots.
Why is anyone surprised that NGO’s like Greenpeace or WWF are neck deep in this stuff? They have been a symbiotic beast of the UNEP and it’s spawn the IPCC since day 1. They have even been given insider status at the UN since Earth Summit +5 when they were given speaking rights at plenary sessions.
I know this is a science blog and not a political blog but even a cursory review of the history of the Stockholm conference, the RIo Earth Summit, the involvement of NGO’s and groups like the UNEP, the IPCC, the World Bank, basically a who’s who of the AGW world would demonstrate that it is the same people with the same world view moving between groups which have no more paper thin separation.
And yes, Fenton Communications fits right in:
Global Warming: As early as the mid-80s, and at the 1997 Kyoto Global Warming Summit, we have worked with green NGOs and leaders including Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to mainstream the climate threat. More recently we have worked with 1Sky, Climate Counts and Step It Up to harness the public “tipping point” on the issue and inspire action.
http://www.fenton.com/our-clients/environment/
And yes, if you look at their client list you will also see Greenpeace, the IPCC and the UNEP.
_Jim (14:54:53) :
“Google can be your friend (Search: “RC censorship”)”
Thanks, I’ll take a look.
“Quote: “We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.”
This post is anecdotal and gives no evidence of any censorship at RC.
“It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. ””
My company pays $13 through Hostgator.com for our web server. Are you suggesting that the climate scientists who post at Realclimate were bought for this price? Is there actually any evidence of their being funded by this Fenton group other than WHOIS info?
Also, _Jim, what’s your take on the many errors and lies of omissions in post from Laframboise?
“Max (02:10:17) :
I think Lord Monckton summed up Greenpeace nicely in one interview. ”
Danke Max! The lady in the video exemplifies very well the attitude of ordinary citizen in support of the AGW theory.
I truly enjoyed watching this.
Greenpeace’s executive director, Gerd Leipold interviewed on TV :
“On July 15th, Greenpeace put out a press release saying the arctic ice caps would melt by 2030, a claim that Leipold now admits is false. Rather than own up, and say it was a mistake and he’d never let it happen again, he says Greenpeace is “a pressure group” that has to “emotionalize issues, and we’re not ashamed” of it.”
Greenpeace are saying that they are perfectly justified in using lies and propaganda to achieve their aims. Putting it another way : No information from Greenpeace can be trusted.
I am assuming their faithful followers were largely unaware of this and believed these lies as truth. I suspect most of them have integrity and will be very unhappy to have been used as pawns in a propaganda war. Greenpeace could end up with a war of its own!
I had some sympathy with Greenpeace when they were a small pressure group highlighting different environmental issues, but now they have representatives in various parliaments and a wide influence globally they can NOT use outright lies, they must act responsibly. Support will dwindle away when voters and others realise they have been duped.
I have long had problems with Greenpeace in their lack of joined up thinking. While often quick to say what can’t be done they do not have any sensible alternative proposals.
For example, in the UK they are saying we should not have a new generation of nuclear power stations, full stop. They do not say ‘Look to develop thorium based reactors which have almost none of the problems of current nuclear reactors’.
Another example from years ago when they successfully stopped the installation of an incinerator designed to burn PCBs as it might cause pollution [denied by the developers], without proposing an alternative way of disposing of PCBs.
I would consider myself an environmentalist but would never think of joining Greenpeace, I live in the real world.
http://www.businessinsider.com/greenpeaces-director-is-busted-for-lying-about-the-effects-of-global-warming-2009-8
Interesting article on thorium reactors :
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/email/html/8746sci2.html
Hans Moleman-
You are missing a very simple yet key point. RealCimate.org was owned by a group called EMS or Environmental Media Services. EMS in turn was nothing more than a division of Fenton Communications. I would urge you to read the well documented book by Chris Horner, Red Hot Lies, if you have any doubts. Go here for a taste.
http://tinyurl.com/yjd69p8
If you don’t know who Fenton is you should do some independent research on them. It’s not hard. Try google.
You can continue to hide your head in the sand and pretend this is the same thing as your company paying $13 a month for hosting services but that won’t make it true. Fenton has a long a dubious history of humping far left scare tactics like the great apple Alar scare which was as based in science as AGW.
As a side note, I have also posted on RealClimate only to have my posts censored.
Idiot*; That is the intro(an excerpt) from the article I linked. Did you visit the link in that post that contains examples of RC censorship?
* According to wikipedia:
An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way. More humorous synonyms of the term include addlehead, blockhead, bonehead, deadhead, dimwit, dodo, dope, dummy, dunderhead, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, numbskull, stupidhead, thickhead, and twit, among many others.
.
.
Don’t waste your time. I am certainly wasting no more of mine. Playing funny little semantic word-games just makes the *pig* happy … ignore and he’ll go away.
.
.
Moderator
This paper, if irrefutable, destroys AGW completely. Is it worth a separate thread? A year old, so may have been done before.
‘Falsifi cation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ffects Within The Frame Of Physics’
Initial reference :
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4992
The paper :
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
REPLY: Thanks, seen it, flawed, old news, sorry. – Anthony
What does W. W. Fund and Greenpeace has in common, but to give F-All about polar bears, oh heh just like the rain forests of the world, it’s like 90% goes to travel, lodging, salary, fuel, and propaganda crap.