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).
When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence. Here it uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the "main wind-energy investments" are located globally (Wind).
Thus, we read on page 14 that, "According to a WHO study, as many as 160,000 people are dying each year as a result of climate change." Should we care to double-check this claim, we're on our own.
As incredible as it sounds, this publication/brochure is itself cited in the Nobel-winning IPCC report as evidence that a particular statement is true. Appearing in the list below as Greenpeace 2006, it is one of two references mentioned in a single sentence, as discussed above.
Which begs an important question: how did it get into the same room with serious scholars? Why would it even be under consideration by a scientific body tasked with producing an assessment of the latest scientific research?
There appears to be an interesting chronology here. First Teske is granted "scientific expert reviewer" status by the IPCC. Second, a non-academic, non-peer-reviewed document in which he was closely involved gets added to the climate change research canon by virtue of it being cited by the Nobel-winning report.
Third, Teske co-authors a new Greenpeace report that receives an extra measure of prestige when it features a forward authored by the high-profile IPCC chairman. Fourth, in a final flourish, Teske - like his Greenpeace colleauge von Goerne - gets elevated to lead author status of yet another IPCC special report (on renewable energy) due to be published this year.
Where does Greenpeace stop and the IPCC begin? Sometimes it's difficult to tell.
Read the link and see the list of Greenpeace citations used in IPCC AR4.
This blog is a about Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) which is global warming caused by the activities of man. The core issues are:
- Is the climate warming, - Is the warming outside of historic norms - Is it caused by anthropogenic CO2 - Will it result in global disaster as the IPCC insists
Only the first has been satisfactorily answered in part and the qualification is that the data upon which the IPCC claims are based has not been made available for full scrutiny as yet. The average terrestrial land temperature experienced slight warming this century. In some regions such as Antarctica it has cooled. The earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age since 1650 (see Akasofu 2007 & 2009) which is one reason this warming trend is expected. It appears that this is not outside of historic norms (see Medieval Warm Period) and that the IPCC and some scientists have attempted to downplay the Medieval Warm Period and the effects of the Little Ice Age. The later two issues are not settled despite UN and government spin towards the contrary. For some excellent background from a real climatologist not implicated in the recent CRU revelations see the links to Dr Roy Spencer's blog below who discusses these issues as a professional.
Australia Joins China and Iran in Net Censorship - Nanny State Cometh
Pearls of Wisdom & Otherwise
Glenn Reynolds (USA - Instapundit.com): "I'll believe its a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."
Nick himself (Counting Cats in Zanzibar blog): "Is it just me or has the spam-trade been entirely taken-over by performance poets on Arts-Council grants?"
Dr. Kiminori Itoh (Phd UN IPCC Scientist Award-winning environmental physical chemist): "When people know what the truth is the will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr. Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor of climatology, Lead author on many IPCC reports, in an interview with Discover Magazine 1989): "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Former US Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management- a London-based business that sells carbon credits, in an interview with Grist Magazine 9 May 2006 re his book An Inconvenient Truth) "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."
New readers may be interested to peruse two of my earlier posts concerning the Fear of Global Cooling which was popular in the late 1970's. I have posted a copy of a Newsweek article together with comments here and here.