The IPCC just doesn't learn…

Quoting Greenpeace (again)

You would have thought the IPCC would have learned some lessons after the revelations that chunks of the last climate report were lifted straight from the work of advocacy groups like Greenpeace. But no. The latest report, on renewables, falls into the same trap, as Donna Laframboise reports:

Last month I blogged about a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on renewable energy. At that time I pointed out that the IPCC was up to its old tricks. When it issued the press release, it made only the Summary available. The full report wasn’t scheduled to become public until later.

The problem with this is that journalists are placed in the position of simply taking the IPCC’s word for it that the summary is an accurate reflection of what the full report says. Although IPCC likes to boast about how transparent it is, this is a perfect demonstration of the wide gap between IPCC rhetoric and reality.

Well, the whole enchilada is now available and, as Steve McIntyre explains, there’s a good reason why the IPCC might not have wanted anyone to look too closely at the full report.

It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document.

It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups.

It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period.

Even warmists are embarrassed by this, as Donna reports later.

Read it all.

Comments

  1. SOYLENT GREEN says:

    I beg to differ, Simon. The IPCC is a political organization. It even said so in the intro to the last report. It actually said policy would hold sway over data.

    It said upfront its job was to find evidence for human-caused global warming. They have never looked for anything else. Ergo, reality isn’t germane to the task.

    • I wish more people understood this. It is no more scientific than a political party conducting an internal investigation as to whether they are all good chaps. The conclusion was stated prior to any investigations being done. They were never, ever going to go ‘you know what? we were wrong, and now we’re going to disband this panel’.

      It’s about time Western governments looked upon the UN as a necessary evil, rather than something to be admired or actively promoted. The peacekeeping side of the UN hardly works at all, but the scientific/environmental/humanitarian side is a string of disasters.

  2. Baldrick says:

    Most Australians would think that the IPCC is an independent body set up by global governments, under the banner of the United Nations, to report on global warming/climate change.
    The fact is they are not an independent body as they use Greenpeace and even WWF material to bolster their reports. Money is changing hands between the IPCC and Greenpeace … so where is the ‘independence’ in that.
    I wonder if the ALPBC will show that on their 7pm news tonight.?

  3. The IPCC is a worrying organisation, whose true motives remain unclear.
    In light of that I am beginning to think Combet has been indoctrinated by the IPCC after Cancun. He appears to be even more “frazzled” and an example of that is when answering simple “Dorothy Dixer’s” in question time.
    His demenour is very aggressive and quite disturbing when he goes into personal attack mode.
    It is hard to know and I would have thought if the IPCC predictions on sea level rise were true he would have a few properties on the market close to the beach?

    • rukidding says:

      Ron Says

      The IPCC is a worrying organisation, whose true motives remain unclear.

      Not at all Ron their motives are perfectly clear they are there to provide the science that will allow the UNFCCC to control every aspect of our lives.
      Welcome to The New World Order.

      • Sorry rukidding,
        You need to see the “forest in amongst the trees” pardon the pun but you like many others have only interpreted half of the story. You need to do some more evaluation and then you may discover the other half. A clue for you, look at the Financial aspects!

  4. rukidding says:

    I thought everybody knew that the IPCC was just a front company for Greenpeace,WWF and others.
    So when ever you see IPCC just think Greenpeace.

  5. You would have thought the IPCC would have learned some lessons

    Indeed, intransigence seems to be an ingrained characteristic of alarmists. Still up to his old tricks, that jolly heirhead Prince Chuckles (If that’s an ad hominem, I blame Daily Bayonet – “always a great read”!) hasn’t learnt anything either. He’s still up to his old tricks.

    The heir apparent to the British throne has called on Australian business leaders to ensure climate change deniers aren’t allowed to further delay action to tackle dangerous global warming [Is that a threat, Charlie?]. All the evidence [No, not evidence, Charlie, failed modelling] shows that we are living in an increasingly unstable world. And yet we continue to test it to destruction and to allow the deniers of human-induced climate change to prevent vital action being taken [Another threat, Charlie?].

%d bloggers like this: