Ed Davey: ‘One year to save planet’

Where do they find them?

Where do they find them?

OK, right, just shut up and listen. We’ve only got ONE year to save the planet, starting NOW.

Thus spake the UK’s moonbat minister for energy, commenting on the Lima gab-fest:

World leaders must agree a deal to tackle global warming within the next year or risk losing our way of life as we know it, Ed Davey, the energy secretary has warned ahead of major international negotiations in Lima.

About 9,000 politicians, diplomats and non-governmental organisation delegates will descend on the Peruvian capital over the next two weeks for the UN’s annual climate change talks, intended to thrash out key details to enable a global deal by an agreed deadline of next year’s summit in Paris.

Mr Davey told the Telegraph: “These are the last major annual talks before we hit our deadline in Paris next year. We need a deal in Paris – there is no alternative that will protect our national security, our economy and the way of life we take for granted.” (source)

Ed was no doubt following the timetable set by the WWF:

WWF’s Climate Solutions report shows how the world can limit its heat-trapping emissions with known technologies and policy changes, using only sustainable, environmentally friendly energy sources.

“The question for leaders and governments everywhere is how to rein in dangerously high levels of carbon dioxide emissions without stunting development and reducing living standards,” said James Leape, WWF International’s Director General. “The Climate Solutions report shows not only that this can be done, it shows how we can do it. We have a small window of time in which we can plant the seeds of change, and that is the next five years. We cannot afford to waste them.

Except that report was in, er, 2007.

Even worse, according to Penny Sackett, alarmist ex-chief scientist, our time runs out in just three days…


Quick, panic!

Corrupting impressionable minds – one book at a time

Harmless? Think again

Unpacking a delivery from Amazon this morning, I was faced with an attractive and well-presented children’s pop-up book entitled “How the World Works – A hands-on guide to our amazing planet” (see cover illustration right).

As usual, before passing it on to my children, I gave it a quick scan for any possible subliminal (or blatant) global warming propaganda, and suffice it to say, it’s going straight back to Amazon in tomorrow’s post.

Just for background, this book was the winner of the Royal Society’s Young People’s Book Prize in 2011 – and that just about tells you all you need to know. The Royal Society isn’t about impartial and rigorous science any more, its about environmental brainwashing and political activism, hence this book would have scored very highly. It was also shortlisted for the Blue Peter Book Awards 2011 (“best book with facts” – no irony intended).

Driving your car kills the planet. Click to enlarge

The first three double spreads, about the formation of the planet were interesting and informative. By the fourth, however, on the water cycle, the usual hectoring tone of the environmentalists began to show through. The principle is that the planet is pure and undefiled and everything humanity does merely damages that purity. So we begin:

“How do we interfere [their emphasis] with the water cycle? Fertilisers and pesticides can seep into rivers and lakes, polluting the water [no mention of the fact that those chemicals allow us to feed the worlds population more effectively than any time in history]. Our vehicles release harmful gases into the air. This makes the rain acidic and affects wildlife [no mention of the fact that the global population’s standard of living has, in part due to the availability of global transportation, never been higher]”

And from there it just gets worse:

“Extreme weather. Weather can be dangerous! Winds and rain help move heat and water around the earth. But extreme weather can cause huge damage to homes, buildings and roads, and can even kill people. Scientists believe that human activities are changing our atmosphere and making the earth warm up. This might mean more extreme weather in the future.”

Gulf Stream - click to enlarge

And now for the Day After Tomorrow moment:

“What if the Gulf Stream stops? Scientists fear that global warming could affect the Gulf Stream. Melting polar ice caps will make the water at the poles less salty, preventing it from sinking and gradually slowing down the Gulf Stream. This would make Europe and North America much colder!”

Yet more global warming alarmism:

“The world has changed fast over the last hundred years. With an increasing number of people, factories, power stations and cards. We are constantly adding large amounts of carbon [sic] to the air, but the planet cannot absorb it any longer. We are meddling with the world’s natural carbon cycle, with worrying results (see ‘The Greenhouse effect,’ on the right.

Because there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more of the Sun’s heat is trapped and the earth’s surface is warming up.”

And then, more lecturing on “green” living:

“How can we reduce our carbon footprint? The best way is to use less energy. We can start at home by turning down thermostats, hanging out the washing rather than tumble drying it, and switching off lights, televisions and computers when not needed. Transport is another big carbon producer. So walking, cycling or using public transport really helps.”

Environmental propaganda - click to enlarge

And as you can see from the images, it’s all dressed up in cheerful, kid-friendly artwork, with plenty of pull tabs and pop-ups so the message is cleverly concealed. Apart from the global warming propaganda, almost every page admonishes the reader and humanity in general for the evil it has done to the planet.

Because it’s a kids book, and the message must be straightforward, there’s no room for subtlety or shades of grey – it’s a blunt assessment that humanity is damaging the planet and we must change our ways, or else.

Gone are the days when children could grow up enjoying the wonders of the planet and the universe for their own sakes without being badgered or berated. Now even pop-up books designed for the very youngest in our society are packed with enviro-propaganda to make them feel guilty about the way in which humanity (and by inference the young readers of the book) have defiled Gaia. Tragic.

A link to the book on Amazon is here.

The publisher is Templar (link).

Christiane Dorion, the author, spent several years as co-ordinator of primary education for, wait for it, WWF. So here we have a committed environmental activist brainwashing children into Gaia-guilt when they are barely out of diapers… 

UPDATE: Apologies for the typos – quick copy typing unfortunately. Hopefully all corrected now.

Environmental activism taints research

Environmental activism is tipping the balance

Environmental activist groups should not be allowed anywhere near scientific research. Such groups have a set of beliefs which will almost invariably skew any such research in which they are involved – whether intentionally or inadvertently.

WWF Australia’s web site sets out its policy with regard to climate change:

Today, because of greenhouse gas pollution, the planet is heating up at a much faster rate than ever before and our oceans are becoming more acidic. Temperature rises can appear small, but small increases translate into big changes for the world’s climate and natural environment.

Hotter days, more severe storms, floods, snowfalls, droughts, fire and higher sea levels are expected in the foreseeable future. These changes threaten jobs, agricultural production, water supplies, industries, human lives and, ultimately, the survival of species and entire ecosystems. Scientists predict that a global temperature rise of close to 2°C (above pre-industrial levels) could result in 25% of the Earth’s animals and plants disappearing because they can’t adapt fast enough. (source)

Leaving aside the obvious errors in those paragraphs, in the view of the WWF, there is no room for doubt. Humans are to blame for climate change and we must do something to stop it. The science is settled, and the debate is over. WWF Australia also strongly supports the “Say Yes” campaign for domestic action on climate change, with links on its home page. There is no ambiguity: WWF has a very rigid political and environmental agenda.

So how can you expect such an organisation to be impartial when assisting with or carrying out scientific research, which, by its very nature, should be impartial and apolitical? There will be little or no incentive to consider the possibility that man’s influence is less than they already “know” to be the case.

We have seen the close links between WWF and the IPCC exposed (see here), which severely damages the credibility and impartiality of the IPCC’s reports, and today we have another doom-laden report, liberally sprinkled with alarming imagery:

The Greenland ice sheet can experience extreme melting even when temperatures don’t hit record highs, according to a new analysis by Dr. Marco Tedesco, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at The City College of New York. His findings suggest that glaciers could undergo a self-amplifying cycle of melting and warming that would be difficult to halt.

Professor Tedesco likens the melting process to a speeding steam locomotive. Higher temperatures act like coal shoveled into the boiler, increasing the pace of melting. In this scenario, “lower albedo is a downhill slope,” he says. The darker surfaces collect more heat. In this situation, even without more coal shoveled into the boiler, as a train heads downhill, it gains speed. In other words, melting accelerates. (source)

Sounds pretty dramatic. But what do we read at the very end?

The World Wildlife Fund is acknowledged for supporting fieldwork activities.

I am not making any suggestion of wrongdoing, or that WWF’s contribution to this work was anything other than entirely proper. What I am suggesting, however, is that not only should science be impartial and apolitical, it should be seen to be impartial and apolitical. There must be a level playing field and consistent standards applied to the involvement of advocacy and activist groups in scientific research. If it’s OK for WWF to be involved in the preparation of an alarmist report about Greenland ice sheets, it should also be OK for an oil company to assist with a report that challenges the consensus position.

That is clearly not the situation we find ourselves in today, which is more like “WWF – good, Exxon – evil.”

So, here’s the deal. Either vested interests (whether consensus or sceptic) should exclude themselves from involvement in scientific research altogether, or both sides must be treated equally. It has to be one or the other.

WWF squeals at IPCC links


Donna Laframboise’s book The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (see review here) has clearly touched a number of raw nerves. The WWF huffs and puffs in a press release:

“It is ludicrous to suggest that in seeking ensure that the observations of climate witnesses are consistent with the best scientific knowledge WWF is seeking to influence the IPCC,” said WWF’s International Climate and Energy initiative leader Samantha Smith.

“It is also ludicrous to suggest that IPCC reports are or could be influenced by the fact that some scientists have generously contributed some input to WWF’s climate witness scheme.” (source – h/t Bishop Hill)

But unfortunately, it is far from ludicrous. It is scandalous.

The IPCC is portrayed as this impartial, aloof body which calmly considers the state of climate science and issues pronouncements every five years or so. Governments then make policy decisions, costing billions (possibly trillions) of dollars, based on the recommendations in those reports. But, as Donna’s book reveals, the IPCC is nothing of the sort. Its sole purpose is to find evidence of human-caused climate change, as required by the UNFCCC – and it makes sure that it finds it with a broad range of tactics that undermine the integrity of climate science.

It is utterly scandalous and disgraceful that scientists involved in the IPCC process have anything whatsoever to do with an extreme environmental activist group like WWF. The WWF has a clear agenda on climate change – it is a blatant conflict of interest for lead authors of IPCC reports to be involved in any WWF project, such as the climate witness scheme. And the wilful blindness of the mainstream media and national governments around the world to this hypocrisy is staggering.

Can you even begin to imagine the hysteria that would result from an IPCC lead author being associated with Big Oil? It would be screamed and shouted from the rooftops 24/7. “How dare an IPCC author have such a clear conflict of interest?” they would shriek. “This is just more evidence of the influence of Big Oil and their band of well-organised climate deniers, spreading misinformation in order to derail the proper work of an impartial body like the IPCC.”

Or how about this as an alternative, if we turn it around?

“This is just more evidence of the influence of Big Green and their band of well-organised climate alarmists, spreading misinformation in order to derail the proper work of an impartial body like the IPCC.”

But we never hear that, ever. EVER. And Big Green has far deeper pockets than Big Oil when it comes to climate propaganda. The reason? Because it’s perfectly fine for the head of the IPCC to endorse Greenpeace documents, or for IPCC lead authors to cosy up to environmental advocacy groups – they have the politically correct high ground. They’re “saving the planet” after all!

The more one thinks about this, the more outrageous it seems.

The reality is the IPCC is utterly compromised, corrupted and politicised. Nobody should take the slightest notice of ANYTHING it says.

IPCC quotes WWF (again) … gets it wrong (again)

IPCC's primary source of alarmism

Peer-review, schmeer-review. Half of the IPCC’s last report was based on stuff like this, papers from deep green advocacy groups like WWF which happened to fit nicely with the IPCC’s pre-conceived agenda of climate alarmism. And they’ve been caught with their pants down yet again, this time on the sensitivity of Amazon rainforests to decreased rainfall:

A new NASA-funded study has concluded that Amazon rain forests were remarkably unaffected in the face of once-in-a-century drought in 2005, neither dying nor thriving, contrary to a previously published report and claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“We found no big differences in the greenness level of these forests between drought and non-drought years, which suggests that these forests may be more tolerant of droughts than we previously thought,” said Arindam Samanta, the study’s lead author from Boston University.

The IPCC is under scrutiny for various data inaccuracies, including its claim — based on a flawed World Wildlife Fund study — that up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically and be replaced by savannas from even a slight reduction in rainfall.

“Our results certainly do not indicate such extreme sensitivity to reductions in rainfall,” said Sangram Ganguly, an author on the new study, from the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute affiliated with NASA Ames Research Center in California.

“The way that the WWF report calculated this 40% was totally wrong, while [the new] calculations are by far more reliable and correct,” said Dr. Jose Marengo, a Brazilian National Institute for Space Research climate scientist and member of the IPCC.

Add it to the ever-lengthening list…

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: