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.
>>_Jim (16:39:43) :
>> Don’t waste your time. I am certainly wasting no more of mine.
Wise decision.
I don’t mind having a rational discussion with someone who has a good faith argument but clearly that’s not the case here.
Still, it’s fun to pound on the trolls who called us deniers for years as their religion turns to dust.
Hans Moleman (12:20:50) : “I don’t see any evidence of censorship.”
Reminded me of this guy:
Sorry, couldn’t resist. 🙂
What a bunch of codswallop! The report was commissioned by Greenpeace but peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It was undertaken by recognized experts with extensive track records. By the way, I have also worked for Rio Tinto and many other organisations. So what. I don’t pick sides – I just get on with doing the science. This is what we call objectivity. Ever heard of it?
Ove HG
Alan the Brit, You are so right with your bit on just what propaganda looks like. Now overlay it on this futerra.uk piece dealing with the AGW message called: “the rules of the game”. Cut from the same cloth… The follow up PR piece to this is called; New rules, New game. The people who wrote this stuff have a unique viewpoint of the world around them… and us.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/how-to-propagandize-climate-change
OveHG (18:34:42)
” by recognized experts with extensive track records”
Who exactly?
Names, titles, employers.
Unless of course ” by recognized experts with extensive track records”, is just your option, you must have some facts.
Backing up your statements with facts is called establishing credibility, “Ever heard of it?”
Hey Anthony, concerning Anticlimactic’s post, did you do a post on that paper? Because I missed it; I’m curious to read as to why it was flawed.
REPLY: I didn’t, but I think one of the other blogs did. – A
I may have missed it, but in light of all this I am very surprised that more has not been made of the fact that the current UK Met Office chairman Robert Napier used to be Chief Exec of the UK branch of the WWF.
Thanks for the link to the Greenpeace “Pacific in Peril” compendium – great stuff.
Timmerman’s CV page at the IPRC lists a LOT of papers – almost makes one jealous! I note that the “Pacific in Peril” one is “refereed” – is that the same as peer-reviewed?
Not that it matters for AR4 inclusion: since 2003, at least, IPCC procedures have specifically allowed for non-published or non-peer-reviewed sources (see here) like industry journals, working papers, proceedings of workshops, etc. if the material might be useful, and I see that that policy is reaffirmed as late as December 2009 (here).
Anyway, keep up the good work – I appreciate your drawing my attention to relevant science I might otherwise have missed!
JackStraw (16:23:54) :
“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.”
I asked if _Jim where the evidence for this claim was. I don’t see a WHOIS report as being sufficient enough. You suggest reading Chris Horner’s book, which I may get to eventually, but I did a quick Google search and here is a recent post from Chris Horner that suggest he doesn’t have any more proof than that WHOIS report (and he actually uses Wikipedia as a source, never a good sign): http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/climategate-what-are-the-alarmists-so-afraid-of/#_ftn1. So does the book actually have more evidence, or is that it? He also suggest Realclimate was started as a response to a Michael Crichton book which seems to go against the popular theory that it was started as a response to McIntyre’s site. Are you sure Horner knows what he’s talking about?
“As a side note, I have also posted on RealClimate only to have my posts censored.”
Sorry, Jackstraw. I hope you understand why I can’t just take the word of an anonymous internet commenter as fact without any other proof…
_Jim (16:36:27) :
“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?”
Yes, I looked at your article. WUWT doesn’t like that McIntyre isn’t included in the Real Climate wiki. That’s not evidence of censorship. And if calling people names is your idea of debate then we’re finished here anyway.
In any case, how do you guys feel about the many errors in the article by Laframboise?
OveHG (18:34:42) :
What a bunch of codswallop! The report was commissioned by Greenpeace but peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It was undertaken by recognized experts with extensive track records. By the way, I have also worked for Rio Tinto and many other organisations. So what. I don’t pick sides – I just get on with doing the science. This is what we call objectivity. Ever heard of it?
Yup, that makes it all OK, just like Tobacco funded studies. If you are funded by special interests the conclusions are going to be biased. We are not naive as you seem to think we are.
Greenpeace cited multiple times in IPCC’s Third Assessment report:
http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/30/greenpeace-cited-multiple-times-in-ipccs-third-assessment-report/
Greenpeace’s involvement in the IPCC is deeper than suggested by laFramboise.
Bill Hare (http://sites.google.com/a/primap.org/www/the-team/bill-hare) was a lead author in WG3 and the synthesis report. He used to be climate director of Greenpeace International before he became a “visiting scientist” (on the payroll of Greenpeace) at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impact Research: http://www.pik-potsdam.de/
Mr Bill Hare, campaigner for Greenpeace, gradually morphed into Dr Bill Hare, respected scientist at PIK. Deception pure and simple.
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=william+hare+pik&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=william+hare+greenpeace&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=
JackStraw (16:23:54) :
“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.”
Thanks for the info on the book. I may check it out, but the excerpt you link to doesn’t say much different than this recent article by Horner: http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/28/climategate-what-are-the-alarmists-so-afraid-of/. In both cases it’s seems his only proof is the WHOIS for the Realclimate.org website. Unless there is other evidence out there I don’t see how that WHOIS info is enough to show what you and Horner are claiming.
_Jim (16:36:27) :
“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?”
I read your link. WUWT thought Realclimate should have an article on McIntyre in their Wiki. That they don’t isn’t evidence of censorship. I’d say try again, but if you’re name calling already I guess that means your ability to discuss this rationally has disappeared.
Has anyone noticed that Greenpeace was cited AGAIN by the IPCC!?!?! Who in their right mind thinks Greenpeace is scientific????
http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/30/greenpeace-cited-multiple-times-in-ipccs-third-assessment-report/
Ove HG
As you are such a firm supporter of the science behind the IPCC AGW prediction, can you show me a scientific peer-reviewed paper from the IPCC that does not base their findings on peer-reviewed papers published by Mann and Jones? I was going to ask Anthony if such a paper is buried in all those pages, but I looked at your blog,and decided that as you are such a supporter of the science behind the AGW prediction, then you must know every paper intimately. Bear in mind that I am a dumbo when it comes to science, but from what I’m reading Mann and Jones have been thoroughly discredited, therefore to my simple mind any scientific study that quotes them as a reference is totally useless. As you have received funding from the Australian government, and you have put yourself into the public arena on this blog, as an Australian taxpayer I feel justified in asking that question. I know reporters won’t ask that question for me.
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4271
In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. Typical AGW believer spouting typical disinformation and bull. Then there is Ove HG doing the same thing claiming the skeptics have only found 2 small errors, as noted in the climateshifts link above, in the IPCC report. More pablum for believers. The real deniers are the AGW crowd who refuse to see their evidence proved false and admit they were wrong and move on. The Climategate crowd admitted the emails were authentic so let’s not insinuate that them admitting Realclimate of theirs is fiction.
Now even more questionable citations are coming to light. The WWF was cited together with the CRU multiple times in AR3:
http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/31/more-wwf-citations-found-in-ar3-three-alongside-cru/
OH MY GOD THE SCIENTISTS CITED ALL THE INFORMATION THEY COULD FIND ON GLOBAL WARMING! CONSPIRACY!11! THEY SHOULD ONLY LOOK AT STUFF FROM WUWT.COM
snedly (02:10:48) :
“In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. ”
You have your facts wrong. Here is the email announcing the formation of Realclimate.org: http://bit.ly/9Q85Cy. Look at who signed it. Of the ten of them, only Mann has been tarnished by the CRU emails.
You should also pay attention to their stated goal: “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.” Sounds a lot less insidious than you were implying, In fact, based on WUWT willingness to turn a blind eye to the many errors in the original post by Donna Laframboise, it would seem important to have an opposing voice out there.
“Then there is Ove HG doing the same thing claiming the skeptics have only found 2 small errors, as noted in the climateshifts link above, in the IPCC report. ”
I don’t see where Ove HG said any of this. In his only post on this page he clarifies misconceptions on the Greenpeace report he co-authored (you realized he was one of the authors, right?) then he makes an admirable statement about his concern with the science over choosing sides. Is there some other Ove HG you were referring to?
Re: the comment by Hans Moleman (04:12:51)
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your note, which you sent to me via e-mail and posted as a comment [here] on Friday. I try hard to be fair-minded and do take your concerns seriously. I felt it was important to give your letter some thought, and now reply on Sunday afternoon.
Your first objection relates to my claim that the IPCC report:
a) links climate change and coral reef degradation and then
b) solely references a Greenpeace document titled “Pacific in Peril” authored by Hoegh-Guldberg et al, in 2000
You say:
1) “…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. [bold added by me]
The sentence you’ve identified, which appears in bold above, is precisely the sentence I referred to. It says climate change is expected to impact coral reefs. You are correct that the larger discussion involves possible economic impacts related to reduced tourism in the event of coral reef degradation. One could, no doubt, devote several paragraphs to explaining the discussion the IPCC was having on that page. But since I had a list of eight publications to talk about, I summed up, in one sentence, the gist of the matter.
My central point – that the IPCC relied on a Greenpeace document when discussing coral reefs and climate change – is not invalidated. It does not follow, therefore, that a correction is in order – or that readers have been misled. I linked directly to the source so that readers could easily see the matter in its larger context for themselves.
Your second objection is hair-splitting at its finest. You express it thus:
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. [bold added by me]
Aringhoff, we both agree, is another Greenpeace-published paper. I say the IPCC “relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower end of an estimate…” You give things a twist and claim that I’m saying it’s Greenpeace doing the establishing. In my single-sentence sum up, I indicate that this section of the IPCC report discusses estimates, you insist that a “potential estimate” is at issue.
Once again, you believe a correction is necessary because readers have been misled. Once again, I draw your attention to the fact that I’ve linked directly to the larger context – and that none of this invalidates my core message: that Greenpeace material was cited by the IPPC to support a declaration it chose to make.
Your third objection reads as follow: [I’ve added in the bold]:
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]“.
A Greenpeace document is cited as evidence in an IPCC report. That is my sole concern. Whether or not it meets your personal definition of a “scientific reference” is another matter. I therefore reject your view that a “clarification” of what I’ve said is in any way required.
Which brings us to your final objection:
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. [my bold]
For the fourth time, you aggressively demand that I – and Anthony Watts – post a correction/clarification so that “readers aren’t misled.” But anyone who read my piece knows that, in the very next paragraph, I discuss GWEC in a manner which makes it abundantly clear that Greenpeace produces documents in partnership with other entities.
That fact in no way challenges my central thesis: that the IPCC treats material published by Greenpeace as evidence. Might there be occasions in which referencing Greenpeace-generated literature is appropriate and legitimate? Perhaps. But that is another discussion.
Reasonable people will have different opinions about the same sections of text in any document. But while you’ve invoked both smoke and mirrors, there’s remarkably little substance to your concerns. It does you no honour to insist that I have committed “a number of errors” and that readers have been misled on four separate occasions.
Yours truly,
Donna Laframboise
Oops! Apparently bolding isn’t possible here. This was originally an e-mail response, which I cut-and-pasted to this forum.
My apologies if the references to bold text is confusing.
[Bold is done with HTML: <b> ~dbs, mod]
Hans Moleman, you’ve been skewered.
My advice: stop digging that hole.
Hans Moleman (11:57:56) :
snedly (02:10:48) :
“In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. ”
You have your facts wrong. Here is the email announcing the formation of Realclimate.org: http://bit.ly/9Q85Cy. Look at who signed it. Of the ten of them, only Mann has been tarnished by the CRU emails.
You should also pay attention to their stated goal: “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.”
—…—…
You are apparently trying to “trial lawyer” (or “Bill Clinton” if you will) out of this summary:
RealClimate is written and edited (regardless of when started and who was present and encouraging the referenced email – which I have no reason or evidence to believe is accurate or complete anyway) by publically-paid employees on public time during business hours to hide and corrupt the growing errors inherent in AGW propaganda.
Daganstein (08:30:47) said:
You know you are dealing with a wanker when they can’t find the caps key and type everything in upper case.
If only they were all scientists, Daganstein. However, the good folks at that organization that it now seems should be called I Prefer Carnal Collaboration are not all scientists.
Moreover, we thing they should stick to the science, not Greenpeace or WWF political advocacy stuff, and they probably should think seriously about a chairman who wants to write about Carnal matters.
Hans Moleman (11:57:56) :
snedly (02:10:48) :
“In the Climategate emails there were exchanges between the participants about getting Realclimate up and running so that they had an outlet to get their “message” out. So Hans Moleman, the main participants in the AGW scam in their own writings admit it is their site. ”
You have your facts wrong. Here is the email announcing the formation of Realclimate.org: http://bit.ly/9Q85Cy. Look at who signed it. Of the ten of them, only Mann has been tarnished by the CRU emails.
You should also pay attention to their stated goal: “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.”
—…—…
You are apparently trying to “trial lawyer” (or “Bill Clinton” if you will) out of this summary:
RealClimate is (now) written and edited (regardless of when started and who was present and encouraging the referenced email or who claimed they signed the referenced email – which I have no reason or evidence to believe is accurate or complete anyway) by publicly-paid employees on public time during business hours to hide and corrupt the growing errors inherent in AGW propaganda.
To date, you – who have complained about “unknown writers and bloggers – have not said who you are, who pays your salary, who validated whatever qualifications you may claim to have, and what prejudices you being with you. Why should any here waste their time addressing your nit-picking (all shown to be false in any case) nuances?
While your nit-picking is illustrative of the false background of the AGW propagandists, you have not advanced the discussion about the biases and false conclusions of the UN’s IPCC based on bad science and a refusal to accurately analyze the 1/2 of one degree (maybe) of warming that occurred the past 50 years. That is IF ANY of the HADCRU-GISS-NOAA-NCDC surface temperatures are accurate – and THAT we doubt as well.
Or the 1/10 of one degree of warming that has occurred since the 1930’s.
Or the 1 degree (maybe!) of warming that has occurred since the 1600’s.
Or the 1/2 of one degree cooling that has occurred since the 1200’s.