IPCC and Greenpeace - Partners in Deception

Professor Bob Carter, after his work with Ross McKittrick on the fraudulent "Hockey Stick," calls Steve McIntyre "the Dragon Slayer."

Now Steve is at it again. The IPCC released a report on 9th May. It was, however not the full report. It was only the Summary for Policy Makers, without any supporting documents.

From Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit:
On May 9, 2011, the IPCC announced:
Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.
The report was partially based on a Greenpeace report and the author of the Greenpeace document was also a lead author of the IPCC report. But it gets worse. As  Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada) reports on her blog No Frakking Consensus:
The research that is relied on by the IPCC is one of two Greenpeace reports of which I’m aware that contain forewords authored by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri (see pages 4-5 here and here). As McIntyre observes, on that occasion Pachauri waxed poetic about the “comprehensive and rigorous” nature of the Greenpeace analysis. 
Oh, What tangled webs we weave when we continue to deceive.

But wait, it gets worse - As Bishop Hill points out HERE, regarding the trade organisation, partly funded by the EU - The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC):
Many have questioned the IPCC's credibility for having allowed an NGO with such a naked political agenda as Greenpeace to influence its statements and advice. But the problem here is far deeper. Trade associations are not only lobbying for their members' interests, they are being paid to lobby the EU to lobby in favour of the policies the EU has already determined it wants. It pays them also to set the parameters of its policies, and to suggest means by which they can be delivered. At the same time, the EREC publishes research which benefits the EU's preferred policies at the global, intergovernmental level. And this research seemingly has the backing of a non-governmental organisation, Greenpeace, which prides itself on taking no money from business or government. 

The next question to ask is this... Can an organisation that represents commercial enterprises really offer governmental organisations impartial policy advice? Imagine the furore 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.


  1. The plot thickens: participants in the long-term smear of skeptic scientists are also involved in the IPCC - see "There is a Cancer Growing on the IPCC and Al Gore" http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/there_is_a_cancer_growing_on_the_ipcc_and_al_gore.html

  2. I don't get it - why all of this conflict? Do we want to create a better world or not? We can continue the way we are going and pollute our rivers and seas, destroy our forests, pollute our air and lose countless species of animals (all of these are happening already). Can we still say then 'at least global temperatures have not escalated'..... crazy!

    1. What a non-sequitur! Real scientists don't go for non sequiturs anyway. "We had a bad storm. Therefore you should stop driving your SUV."

      Can we still say then 'at least global temperatures have not escalated(?)

      Yes we can, as global temperatures, according to the data sets accepted by ALL climate scientists, have stayed static for 17-23 years.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!