Another View on Climate

My Own View of Global Warming

Posts Tagged ‘Greenpeace’

Here Come the Activists, into the IPCC

Posted by greg2213 on March 6, 2013

It’s well known that at least of part of the IPCC is activist driven. This doesn’t matter to the alarmist/hysteric crowd and is only slightly bothersome to the warmists. The rest of us, however…

It’s official. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is cognitively impaired. It is wholly incapable of learning from its mistakes.

The IPCC is comprised of three working groups. Working Group 3 is led by Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Three days ago that institute posted an announcement on its website calling for “expert reviewers” to provide feedback to Working Group 3′s draft report. The first paragraph of that announcement includes the following:

The scientists who are organizing this process ask for voluntary contributions from experts across all sectors, from scholars to business people or NGO representatives. [bold added]

Here we go again. The World Wildlife Fund is an NGO. Greenpeace is an NGO. The people who work for those organizations are not scientific experts. They are advocates, activists, and partisans. They have an agenda. They are paid a salary to advance that agenda.

Go here for the rest: IPCC Invites In the Activists

More:

Posted in IPCC | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Heartland Institute and Green Funding

Posted by greg2213 on February 18, 2012

Update 2/24: WUWT has a ton of links on this whole affair, which the alarmists are defending. Rep. Markey has definitely swallowed the kool-aid here.

Some notes on the Heartland fluffle:

There’s been a lot of bed-wetting in the alarmist blogosphere about “the evil Heartland Institute” (corrupting small children, spreading rumors, etc.) They’e horrified, just really outraged and totally frazzled, that Heartland had the unmitigated gall to contribute some money to skeptic climate concerns. Many of them don’t even care that the core Heartland doc was faked (hence the label, Fakegate.) Doesn’t bother me, since it just makes them look even sillier than usual.

Heartland. Oh the horrors. Oh the wet sheets. Ugh.

JoNova, as usual, puts it all in perspective.
(click image for a bigger pic.)

How Much Money???

Image is a slightly modified on from JoNova’s site: Fakegate: the smog blog exposes irrational rage, innumeracy, and heartland’s efficient success.

So we have this:

  • Heartland budget, $7 mil
  • Greenpeace, WWF, Pew, Sierra club: about $1.4 billion.

So with a little math… 202 times that of Heartland. One could make interesting remarks about their credibility, I think.

By the way, being green pays rather well: see green funding,

As far as this non-scandal Vs Climategate? Well, there really isn’t any comparison, but I don’t think anyone’s mind will be changed here.

Update 2/18: Can’t really argue with what Steve says:

The scandal has nothing to do with HI funding skeptics.

It has to do with warmists engaging in felony fraud, forgery, libel and defamation of character. Any journalist who hasn’t figured that out yet is clearly in a weakened mental state. They should be running away from this as fast as they can.

Here’s the post.

Update 2/19:

Update 2/21:

Peter Gleick has fessed up to all but forging the memo. I seriously doubt the he, or most on his side feel that he’s done anything wrong.

Gleik is too valuable an asset to the cause. His legal costs till be covered by the cause and he’ll lay low for a little while, until the smoke clears, Shortly thereafter he will start making noises again, after all is forgotten and forgiven by the green side. I doubt that any legal action brought by any parties damaged by his actions will amount to much. He’ll be back.

Judith Curry writes, in part:

When ‘Heartlandgate’ first broke, I saw no parallels with Climategate.  Now, with the involvement of Gleick, there most certainly are parallels.  There is the common theme of climate scientists compromising personal and professional ethics, integrity, and responsibility, all in the interests of a ’cause’.

On the one hand, Climategate involved a large number of people that were involved in the IPCC.  Apart from the FOI avoidance that was arguably criminal, everyone seems to have been ‘cleared’ by the various investigations.  On the other hand, Gleick is only one person, but his actions are far more serious, particularly if they involve fabrication of a document.

If the scientific and environmental communities were to react like Andy Revkin, then the damage from this potentially can be contained (one bad egg):

The broader tragedy is that his decision to go to such extremes in his fight with Heartland has greatly set back any prospects of the country having the “rational public debate” that he wrote — correctly — is so desperately needed.

Joe Romm, at least so far, has ignored the whole issue.  Which strategically is not a bad move.

Unfortunately, already we are seeing signs of exactly the opposite strategy.  Over at DeSmog Blog:

Whistleblowers – and that’s the role Gleick has played in this instance – deserve respect for having the courage to make important truths known to the public at large. Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it’s fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk – and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price. For his courage, his honor, and for performing a selfless act of public service, he deserves our gratitude and applause.

Scott Mandia, a leader of the Climate Rapid Response Team, is quoted:

…”Heartland has been subverting well-understood science for years,” wrote Scott Mandia, co-founder of the climate science rapid response team. “They also subvert the education of our school children by trying to ;’teach the controversy’ where none exists.”He went on: “Peter Gleick, a scientist who is also a journalist just used the same tricks that any investigative reporter uses to uncover the truth. He is the hero and Heartland remains the villain. He will have many people lining up to support him.”

The climate insanity factor has just jumped upwards a big notch.

Here’s the whole article, well worth reading: Gleick’s ‘integrity’

As far as DeSmog and Mandia’s remarks, I don’t think they can be called lies since these guys believe them to the core of their being. That they are nonsensical is another matter.

2/23: Monckton weighs in on WUWT: Fakegate: why the perps should be prosecuted

…what we call Fakegate – the frauds recently perpetrated to the detriment of the blameless Heartland Institute. Among some there was a feeling, often expressed by the nicer but more woolly-headed and ineffectual sort of skeptic, that somehow scientists who commit frauds ought not to be prosecuted for them, for otherwise academic research would become impossible.

I hear this unsoundly-founded point so often that it is hard to keep an even temper. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, whether perpetrated by a scientist or by anyone else….

But will anyone act?

I’ll be very surprised if anyone faces criminal charges, much gets anything more than a slap on the wrist. I fully expect that all guilty parties will be well defended by their crowd and will, in a few weeks, be continuing as if nothing had happened. More likely it’ll be “Dude! Fake, but accurate! You spoke TRUTH to the evil-doers!”

2/23b: Should anyone get jail time? Hmmm….. Maybe it’s enough for the skeptic crowd to know the lengths these people will go to. They’ve lost credibility in the eyes of a group who gave them none to begin with. They’ve lost a few people more or less on their side. They’ve reinforced themselves in the eyes of their hysterical base. Would libel penalties be a deterrent or a call to further Martyrdom?

2/23c: Dr. G. wins the coveted Hippie of the Week award. Congratulations!

2/25: Gleicks possible motives? Is this the editorial which pushed him over the edge. Gleick joins another association.

2/27: About the funding of the evil climate denial (there is no climate???) machine, check this out.

2/28: Killer question, since the alarmosphere considers Gleick’s escapes to be wonderful: “Would Copernicus and Galileo have been right to lie about the nature of the solar system if that lie prevented the undermining of the Catholic Church, which most everyone at the time felt to have substantial positive benefits?”

2/28: Donna Laframboise adds : Where Do Gleick’s Apologists Draw the Line? Climate audit explains why Gleick could be in serious trouble (not that he will be.) Idiocy from the LA Times.

Heartland info & FAQ

WUWT Gleick thread, part two.

Fakegate timeline

3/1: A graphic which beautifully illustrates the overwhelming superiority of Heartland funding.

3/11: Nice to be proven right (2/21 above:)  17 Days Later, Peter Gleick is Back in the Saddle

3/19: The climate of history – condemned to repeat it. “Some have suggested that the Fakegate affair has been discussed enough. They are wrong. Peter Gleick is a minor figure in climate science and his actions are of little account. But the reaction of all the global warming alarmists, who see nothing wrong with what he did, is much more significant.” Includes bits appropriate for classroom discussion. Also includes links to what the hysterics believe should be done to “deniers,” including the 10:10 video.

Posted in Big Green | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Greenpeace is Lead Author of IPCC Report

Posted by greg2213 on June 15, 2011

Another nail in the coffin of IPCC credibility.

Actually, for the greenies, it probably enhances IPCC cred since, naturally, any bias that Greenpeace might show is for the “greater good.” For policy makers, who are supposed to need objective info (I know, I’m incredibly naive) this should kill the report’s usefulness, but I expect the effects will be nil.

The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.

The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario.

It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.

Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

On ClimateAudit: IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke

WUWT chimes in: A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC

I’m not certain, but I don’t think this IPCC news will be of interest to the various government that are hell-bent on destroying their economies coping with global warming. They will still hold the IPCC up as the gold standard, pretending that the gold-plate covering the base metal is really gold.

Maybe a few on the warm side will decide that there is something improper about Big Oil Greenpeace writing their own IPCC chapter on the benefits of fossil fuel green/renewable energy usage. Maybe not. I expect most will see nothing whatsoever wrong with Big Oil Greenpeace doing this and will ridicule the IPCC critics appropriately.

More:

  • Bishop hill says: Ideological money laundering – “Can an organization that represents commercial enterprises really offer governmental organizations impartial policy advice? Imagine the furor that would ensue, were oil companies so instrumental in the design of EU policies and their implementation. Lobbying is one thing; such proximity to policy-making is quite another.”
  • New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace – “…That release of the full report happened yesterday. And a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year …” (said non-scandals chipped away at IPCC cred, especially given how poorly handled was the response to said non-scandal.)
  • More from Mark Lynas: Questions the IPCC must now urgently answer
  • More for ClimateAudit: Responses from IPCC SRREN
  • Judith Curry, Heretic: In reconsidering “monster creation,” a key element in this is the reaction of the warm-green side of the debate to even relatively moderate criticisms of the IPCC.  You are ignored by the IPCC and vilified by its defenders, which makes you realize that there was even more there to criticize than you originally thought.
  • Inconvenient Skeptic adds some remarks about similar conflicts of interest with certain geo-engineering projects. “It fully appears that the IPCC has turned into a gravy train for people that are using the “global warming crisis” to get filthy rich in the process.  I guess they have all learned from Al Gore that using the crisis to get the government to pour money into your projects is the real way to wealth.”
  • Followup from ClimateAudit: Lynas’ Questions

So far it looks as if my snark was correct. With very few exceptions the green crowd sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the IPCC’s actions regarding this report. Clearly it’s Ok for Big Oil Greanpeace to participate in the creation of certain IPCC documents.

Posted in IPCC | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

The Greens Aren’t Very Nice, Are They?

Posted by greg2213 on May 27, 2010

Update 8/6/11:

Recently, radical environmentalists have waged a campaign to stifle free enterprise and economic freedom. Here are some of their recent skirmishes, ranging from crop destruction in Australia to attacks on toy companies like Lego and Disney…

Original Post:

C3 Headlines notes some of the things the alarmists have said about the skeptics. Brings back fond memories of the Spanish Inquisition… I guess they feel their gravy train is being threatened.

From:  Hate Unleashed: What’s Driving The Hate Speech & Violence Threats of Global Warmistas?

  • James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics,  accusing them of high crimes against humanity
  • Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors
  • Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible
  • David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed
  • DeSmogBlog’s James Hoggan wants skeptics treated as war criminals (video)
  • Grist called for Nuremberg trials for skeptics
  • Joe Romm encourages the idea that skeptics will be strangled in their beds
  • A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers
  • Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified
  • Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers.
  • [Not to mention Greenpeace declaring that "they know where you live"] Here’s the current page, where Greeenpeace posts its case for “that quote was taken WAY out of context,”  and here’s an article regarding the original post. Hopefully GP took the writer into a dark back room and made it very clear to the fellow that their goal is to win hearts and minds, not spit on them. Personally, I think they took him into the party room and gave him a round of “high-fives.”

ClimateQuotes collects, you guessed it, quotes from other wild and wacky alarmist types. For example, here’s their Al Gore page.

And then, there are various other quotes by various extreme types…

Let’s not forget the 10:10 video. These are such lovely people.

Posted in Big Green, Quotes | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

More Collapsing of the Alarmist AGW Concept

Posted by greg2213 on January 30, 2010

Catastrophic Warming was never a theory, in any scientific sense, and was shown to be a bad (wrong) hypothesis just by looking at data from several tens of millions of years ago when CO2 levels were far higher than now.

Finally the (mainstream) media is starting to notice inconvenient truths about the whole issue.

You know about glaciergate, here’s more: Times Online (UK:) Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen – the chairman (Rajendra Pachauri) of the leading climate change watchdog (IPCC) was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit

China Daily: Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC? – “Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three “human” errors, isn’t it time scientists gave its work a serious review?”

Times Online (UK:) Indian glaciologist criticised by IPCC chief joins calls for resignation – Rajendra Pachauri falls out of favour in home country, as scientists and campaigners add to pressure on him to step down…

Hilarious Article in the Irish Times: Deniers winning climate change war. Why hilarious?

  • deniers are “winning the propaganda war” which reads to me that the alarmists admit to  using propoganda.
  • “…acknowledged that scientists were “lousy” at communicating their ideas to the general public…” They’ve never had to, Al Gore and the media do it for them. The entire MSM, celebrities, and many governments are on the alarmist side and they are losing the propoganda war? Must be some seriously bad science on the alarmist side, I think. With that much ammo on their side I think the alarmist case must hold about as much water as the flat earth argument.
  • “…the reality that man-made climate change was an accepted fact among climate scientists…” Not a reality, except among a small group of CSs. Now, if he dropped the “man-made” part we would all be in agreement. Climate change happens.
  • ““Not having being brought up in the literary and debating societies, scientists are not very good at winning arguments…” Maybe HE isn’t, but see above about which side the media is on. It would help of they had good arguments and didn’t have Al Gore and the media making their arguments.
  • “…that argument (no warming, even cooling) could be easily refuted by looking at temperature changes since 1980, which would show that temperatures have been on an upward trajectory.”  Temps head up (slightly) till 1998 then level off. Where’s the warming, Doc? And which part of it is different from previous warming periods? No warming for 12 years and we should be worried, because…?
  • I don’t think the good Dr. understands (nevermind respects) the skeptics arguments. Maybe that’s his problem.
  • This is kind of like Kerry, Hansen,  and others complaining about being censored while on the Leno show.

Greenpeace is also a source for the IPCC: Not the there is necessarily anything wrong with Greenpeace, but they are an advocacy organization, not a scientific one. The IPCC report should clearly state that some of their conclusions were based on reports from advocacy groups.

A little more pn Greenpeace and the IPCC: Greenpeace Experts Direct Parts of UN IPCC AR4 Report

And to sum up some of the problems, here’s an editorial by Nature (the “science” journal) with translation, and appropriate corrections, by the Air Vent: The Politics of Nature

JoNova has a video of Obama’s SoTU address and argues that the crowd is laughing at Obama’s “climate change” remark, not with it. I’m not sure I agree. Here’s the video.

Oh yeah, a certain well-known terrorist believe in man made climate change, too. Or he believes that this is a way to get his remarks back into a highly sympathetic media. “Oooo…  he believes in CC, we’ll run the article!”

And people wonder why we’re not willing to give up our economies on the IPCC recommendations? The Catastrophic warming idea is dead. Let’s bury it and move on.

For more links see the previous post: Is the AGW Scare Collapsing?

Update: More stuff

Posted in IPCC, Media | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.