After the revelations yesterday of the latest IPCC self destructing FUBAR, we now have at Bishop Hill, a guest post by Ben Pile. In it he outlines what he has found about the millions of Euros that are being spent to create the appearance of favorable research influence on green policy. It is post-normal “science” at it’s worst.
Some excerpts:
The advice it produces will further the agendas of those policy-makers. The suggestion here is not that money has changed hands — Greenpeace doesn’t need the money; what it gets for the favours it does the establishment is influence. The service it provides is to give government-funded, agenda-ridden ‘research’ the superficial appearance of independence and legitimacy: ideological money-laundering. It makes clean the millions of Euros of public money given to the renewable energy sector for its PR.
It is no surprise that the EU and governments, spurious quasi-autonomous organisations and NGOs are in cahoots. It has long been known that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favour of the policies that the EU wants. And it is no surprise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. We all knew this much.
What is surprising is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise. We all knew that ‘grey literature’ — non-scientific and non-peer reviewed ‘research’ — found its way into IPCC reports. What surprises is the extent to which ‘grey organisations’ — para-govermental institutions with public functions, but little or no democratic accountability or transparency — are involved in the production of policy and evidence-making, benefitting a narrow industrial sector and serving a particular political agenda.
h/t to Josh
R. Gates says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
So the fact that the largest and most influential outfit pusing the AGW scam is corrupt to it’s core, is irrelevant to whether the AGW scam is true or not. Let’s not forget that the vast majority of people who also push the AGW scam also point to the IPCC as their irefutable proof of AGW.
Interesting take there.
Greenpeazers, the bearded methane outgassing vegan weed mongers for regenbogenblasrohrsturmsoldaten, who will only “attack” those who can’t legally defend themselves, the au natural shock trousers to the Wahnsinnig Waffen Fond, the vanguard of the Internationale Pyramidenspiel Kohlenstoff Korporation.
Like the head of Big dirty coal munching industry would spear head a save the planet by going green organization be fronted by non profit organization who runs a bunch of profitable corporations and the greenest of them all organizations running their own profitable corporations all the while being indirectly backed by Biggest oil. Pfft, right? o_O
R. Gates June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
“[T]he existence of a measurable signal in the rise in global temperatures in the 20th century attributable to a high degree of confidence (95%) to anthropogenic GH gases” is a curiously weak statement in light of the IPCC AR4 statements on detection and attribution. You’d need studies that claimed significantly more than that to support AR4.
Thought this might be timely:
“The most important conclusions about global climatic disruption…have not been concocted by the Sierra Club or the enemies of capitalism. They are based on an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted. [bold added]”
John Holdren, science adviser to President Obama
Exactly who are the puppet masters in all this is a mystery. Pachauri is no more culpable than the EU.
It is a fellow traveler thing. Read these three books in sequence.
Limits to Growth
Beyond the Limits
Earth in the Balance
The theme is common, the agenda is there, it is being executed by those who do not have the vision to understand that Limits to Growth as it is presented is a myth. They had spiffy computer charts with predictions there as well, and all of them have failed the test of time.
@Russell C
If Donna LaFramboise said that Greenpeace people were found in the report, and it turns out that Greenpeace people WERE found in the report, how does that constitute a smear?
To paraphase Eric Hoffer ( I think ) , every great cause becomes a racket . This is true throughout the envionmental movement , and has been for quite some time .
R. Gates says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
The possible corruption at the IPCC and the issue of how sensitive the climate may be to the 40% rise in CO2 levels over the past few centuries are two completely different issues. It may be convenient for some AGW skeptics to blur the two, but such a blurring has no basis in reality as a great deal of non-IPCC funded or sponsored research has come to similar conclusions about the existence of a measurable signal in the rise in global temperatures in the 20th century attributable to a high degree of confidence (95%) to anthropogenic GH gases..
No, they aren’t two separate issues. The second issue, CO2 = CAGW, derives directly from the first = ipcc corruption, with its obligatory failure to practice real science.
No one needs to deny that CO2 is a ghg or that within the workings of the climate it has a small effect on atmospheric temperatures. It’s the completely concocted “sensitivity” of atmospheric temperatures to CO2 concentrations, magically abetted by water vapor, and the likewise completely ginned-up postulate that a catastrophic runaway of atmospheric temperatures will occur with increasing CO2 concentrations, still as magically abetted by water vapor…while this magic has never happened before when it should already have happened according to CO2 = CAGW’s own “science”, and even independently according to water vapor’s nature as a ghg, regardless of CO2 concentrations…it’s this magic mechanism and its postulated catastrophe which is not only not a blur between the two issues: the second issue is essentially a functioning corollary of the first.
I’ll save people the trouble. Greenpeace and the IPCC are like two peas in a pod, strawberries and ice-cream, birds of a feather if you like.
“Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace”
“Greenpeace and the Nobel-Winning Climate Report”
“Ka-Ching! More Greenpeace Money”
“Clueless New IPCC Policy Ignores Advocacy Literature”
“The IPCC’s Activist Chairman”
BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot
more…
P Walker says:
June 16, 2011 at 2:18 pm
“To paraphase Eric Hoffer ( I think ) , every great cause becomes a racket . This is true throughout the envionmental movement , and has been for quite some time.”
Ah, for the days when the Mob was the only international crime syndicate. Because the goals of the Greens are exactly the goals of the communists and because highly-placed Greens are self-avowed communists, people such as ex-czar Van Jones, I think the communists are driving this.
Doug says:
June 16, 2011 at 1:16 pm
“Thought this might be timely:
“The most important conclusions about global climatic disruption…have not been concocted by the Sierra Club or the enemies of capitalism.”
And with the exception of Arrhenius’ physical hypotheses, there is not one physical hypothesis among all those papers. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? If you produce no reasonably well-confirmed physical hypotheses, then you are not doing science.
JN says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Expand on this, please. Point us to the facts.
For the faithful of the AGW cult, Greenpeace is a truly scientific organisation.
In reality, Greenpeace is an almost perfect clone of one of those weird religious cults for which the USA is so famous. It is a money making machine whose survival depends on spreading unfounded scare stories to the lumpen proletariat/their faithful in order to keep that machine well oiled. The people at the top of these organisations have benefits and a morality which would make a 2007 investment banker blush.
If anyone doubts this, ask Greenpeace for some scientific information on any subject you choose – the response will be mostly useless gibberish, almost without any scientific basis or backing.
As for the IPCC, it is difficult to figure out which writes the best fantasy – them or Greenpeace?
Yaaaawn! Tell the IPCC to start looking at the last few centuries instead of since 1960.
Theo Goodwin ,
I think he was referring to the labor movement , and look at what’s become of it . The same holds true for the environmental movement – it has evolved into what is essentially an extortion racket . As far as their political agenda ? Well , you called it , although the “c ” word has fallen out of fashion .
Did the UN require financial disclosure statements from IPCC authors? If organizational conflicts of interrest were not controlled, it raises the question if personal ones were managed.
The UN’s past performance and what is publically available via a brief search, do not inspire confidence.
Jeremy says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:44 pm
R. Gates says:
June 16, 2011 at 11:24 am
This kind of coziness is of course downright sickening and certainly speaks volumes about the credibility and objectiveness of some IPCC findings, but the bigger issue here ultimarely is really about the corruption of governmental processes across the board, and that corruption centers on the undo influence of money in political processes. That the IPCC would even be partially corrupted by alternative energy companies looking to make a market via forced legislation is only the latest chapter in the long-term domination of governments and governmental authority around the world by big money interests.
So, let me understand you. You seem to be saying that it was the alternative energy companies who corrupted the process. I don’t recall large tens-of-billions a year companies doing alternative energy before the AGW scare came about. In fact the only big money in energy before this came about was in oil. But your post seems to suggest that the corruption originated with capitalism. Does anyone remember large lobbying groups lobbying on behalf of Solar, Wind, and biofuel industries before 1990? I don’t. And I think our perennial troll Mr Gates here is revising history.
In fact exactly the opposite occurred. Non-governmental-organizations (NGOs) created a justification for alternative energy, and the alternative energy companies then contributed to the corruption that spawned their need. When not supported by government subisidies, these companies die as fast as NOGs without donations.
You, Mr Gates, seem to want to lay the blame on capitalism. I’m not going to stand here and tell you that big corporations don’t corrupt democracies, I would easily grant you that and I find it disgusting too. But I’m also not going to accept a shifting of the blame of IPCC corruption onto capitalism when in fact it was eco-socialists all along.
——–
I think you are confused about the difference between capitalism and corporatism. The corruption of the IPCC, to whatever level it is corrupt, isn’t about capitalism, and it isn’t about some Eco-socialists wanting to take control of the world. There are some dedicated scientists and some idealists involved, and whatever corruption there is ultimately about money somewhere down the line, and this kind of money-centric influence in setting international governing policy isn’t capitalism, but more akin to the kind of corporatism that has run Washington D.C. for so many decades. Follow the money and you’ll usually find the truth.
Mark Wilson says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:57 pm
R. Gates says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm
So the fact that the largest and most influential outfit pusing the AGW scam is corrupt to it’s core, is irrelevant to whether the AGW scam is true or not. Let’s not forget that the vast majority of people who also push the AGW scam also point to the IPCC as their irefutable proof of AGW.
Interesting take there.
———–
I have no problem separating the real science from politics…in fact I prefer it that way. I highly recommend it to warmest and skeptic alike as it can be quite enlightening.
Andrew30 says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:05 pm
“Sometime you do not actually need a tangible product to get peoples money.
Greenpeace International, ‘Guilt, Fear’
Wildlife Fund for Nature, ‘Guilt, Fear’”
Heck, organised religion has been running with that for thousands of years.
Dandy Troll, Have you been reading Finnegan’s Wake?!
New Zealand had the right idea with a judge stripping Greanpeace of their tax free charity status and classifying Greenpeace as a political organisation.
With the revelations of NGO’s such as Greenpeace having direct influence on the content of IPCC AR4 and now AR5, should ring alarm bells.
When is the rest of the world going to wake up ?
I find it particularly confronting to see a tee shirt with Greenpeace China emblazoned upon it.
When Schneider was still alive this sort of thing wouldn’t have come to light. They’re really falling apart without their mastermind. He was the master in balancing honesty with efficiency.
The agenda-driven funding of climate alarmism goes far beyond Europe. The Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and many bi-lateral governmental aid agencies use grant funding to promote policies, programs and projects in support of investment in climate adaptation and climate mitigation. This grant money is taxpayer funded.
The objective is to get a developing country to accept the need to invest in infrastructure and equipment to cope with climate change and/or to mitigate climate change. The developing country will be expected to borrow from the agency that provided grants. First grants to justify the projects and then loans to finance the projects.
What if the consultant working on the grant-financed project says that he/she does not accept the regional/ local projections produced by the climate models?
What if a consultant or adviser advises the country not to borrow to invest in either adaptation of mitigation of climate change?
What position is taken by the US representatives on the board of governors of the ADB and World Bank?
How come the US Senate has not explored the role of the US Government in directly or indirectly supporting these activities?
It seems inevitable that large organisations, however they present themselves and no matter how noble their stated ‘mission’, will slide into corruption as individuals withing those organisations become accustomed to living well. The Olympic movement, FIFA and many other supposedly ‘non-profit’ organisations have demonstrated that they are subject to corruption and must, on an almost continuous basis, clean house. The EU has a deserved reputation for endemic corruption and it is no surprise that Greenpeace, which began with the highest of ideals, has itself succumbed to corruption. The UN is merely another example of an organisation which grew out of the horrors of war and began with the loftiest of ideals, which has become corrupt with the passing of time.
Immediately organisations resist public financial audits by reputable auditors, alarm bells should ring and automatic mechanisms which begin the stable-cleaning should be triggered.
Theo Goodwin says:
June 16, 2011 at 2:38 pm
And with the exception of Arrhenius’ physical hypotheses, there is not one physical hypothesis among all those papers.
Arrhenius (1906b, pp. 154 and 225) still clung to the aether hypothesis, which refers to the unspecified material medium of space. Arrhenius’ adherence to this hypothesis remained firm in spite of its sound refutation by Michelson & Morley (1887).
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
Arrhenius was in a scientific backwater in his own time.