Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the marine biologist who led the IPCC’s Ocean chapter, is a full-blown environmental activist. He recently wrote a politicized foreword to a WWF brochure, and has a long history of employment with both the WWF and Greenpeace.
40 people belonged to the IPCC’s 2007 ‘core writing team.’ 11 of them have documented links to either the World Wildlife Fund or Greenpeace.
Two-thirds of the 2007 Climate Bible’s chapters include personnel affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund. Fifteen chapters were led by WWF-affiliated scientists.
Between 2004 and 2008 the World Wildlife Fund recruited 130 “leading climate scientists mostly, but not exclusively, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” to help it heighten the public’s sense of urgency.
Jennifer Morgan was recently recruited to help prepare the upcoming edition of the climate bible. Rather than being one of the world’s finest scientific minds she is a professional activist – as in chief climate change spokesperson for the World Wildlife Fund.
Why is a Vice President of an activist group taking part in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change workshops – and serving as a review editor for the upcoming edition of the climate bible?
On page 25 of Chapter 2 and page 58 of Chapter 4 (Working Group 2 report of the AR5), the sole evidence the IPCC cites for a claim about the … Continue reading
Why doesn’t the World Wildlife Fund argue for its vision based solely on that vision’s merits?
Media outlets remain oblivious to the IPCC’s tainted-by-activism personnel.
A fictional UN climate body exists in the minds of the gullible. And then there’s the real IPCC.
With attention focused on the IPCC’s imminent Working Group 1 report, a prestigious science journal has published a misleadingly-headlined profile of Working Group 3 co-chair, Ottmar Edenhofer.
If the IPCC was a scientific body, the science section of its upcoming report would be summarized by scientists and that would be the end of the matter. Instead, the science summary will be the battleground at a 4-day political gathering.
When Greenpeace personnel are participating, a political process is underway – not a scientific one.
If the IPCC had done the sensible thing and banned activist publications, would the institute run by its chairman still be receiving activist cash?
Last week, a sustainability summit organized by the chairman of the IPCC was held in India. The World Wildlife Fund provided funding.
The World Wildlife Fund is using ordinary Mexicans as pawns in a geopolitical chess game.
When I describe the surreal world of climate science to people who are strangers to that world I know it sounds fantastical. But there are strong parallels with the recently destroyed economies of Iceland, Greece, and Ireland.
Most chapters in Working Group 1 of the 2007 Climate Bible contained at least one scientist who is affiliated with professional climate lobbyists. In one instance, four of the lead authors were tainted in this manner.
The World Wildlife Fund says the charge that scientists linked to its organization have infiltrated the IPCC is ‘ludicrous.’ I suppose it’s a total coincidence that more than 2/3rds of the IPCC report’s chapters included at least one WWF-affiliated individual.
The erroneous Himalayan glacier prediction was based on a WWF report. The IPCC chapter in which that mistake occurred was led by two WWF-affiliated scientists.
Where, on the CV of a person employed by Greenpeace for the past 17 years, does it say distinguished scientist?
New Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines declare that blogs “are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports.” Yet these same guidelines say nothing about advocacy literature published by groups such as Greenpeace.
Actions speak louder the words. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims to be impartial and evenhanded – but that’s not how it behaves.
When five out of ten lead authors of an IPCC chapter have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund their findings aren’t credible.
An influential report aimed at business leaders re-labelled an implausible, far-fetched scenario as ‘our current path.’
Ecology professor’s political opinions published repeatedly in scientific journals.
It’s absurd to say scientists are only now speaking up. Reuters publishes egregious climate propaganda.
People tell themselves fairy tales about UN organizations – and disparage journalists who shine a light on what’s actually going on.
When a journalist thinks for herself about climate change, insults & fabrications follow.
Allegations that mining threatens wildlife rely on activist ‘evidence.’
Some discoveries are easy to measure and easy to verify. But much of science is about groping in the dark.
How does encouraging scientists to criticize government policy enhance scientific integrity?
Nothing we do to protect the environment will ever be good enough. Like the Nazgûl in The Lord of the Rings, green lobbyists are relentless.
Many of the scientists who signed an open letter against museums taking money from special interests are themselves linked to special interests. Part 3 of 3.
Tasked with assessing the achievements of others, a jury that includes IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri heaps honour on one of its own.
Environmental organizations are large, affluent, and secretive. Rather than being underdogs, they are now the establishment.
Hard-hitting IPCC journalism – some reasons to cast your vote for this blog.
Ontario energy minister says we should wear sweaters in winter.
I’ve been invited to give oral evidence to a UK parliamentary committee – and have been offered a research fellowship at a think tank.
UN officials need to stop dressing up political arguments as science.
Rather than speaking truth to power, activists have been parroting claims by the establishment that the IPCC chairman is a Nobel Prize winner.
The Guardian‘s environment correspondent couldn’t be more one-sided if she herself were on the IPCC’s payroll.
A US official recently called Rajendra Pachauri’s leadership of the world’s most important climate body ‘extraordinary.’ But ‘inadequate’ and ‘inexcusable’ are more appropriate.
Once again, people described as “leading scientists” turn out to be economists, UN officials, and those with links to activist organizations.
What lessons will the rest of the world learn from Germany’s renewable energy disaster?
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
Climate skeptics don’t hire advertising agencies to help them manage their brand. Green groups do. So tell me again which side is lavishly funded?
The full text of an interview I recently gave to FoxNews – and a link to the story.
A majority of the 13 senior scientists responsible for a US government report are also associated with activist groups. (Eight of them have an IPCC connection.)
Thanks to a whistleblower, draft versions of most chapters of the IPCC’s upcoming report are now in the public domain. Among the new revelations: the IPCC has learned nothing from the Himalayan glacier debacle.
A senior public servant thinks scientists should be passionate, engaged activists.
A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
Companies that cozy up to the WWF in order to enhance their public image may find that the plan backfires.
How are green groups different from yesterday’s colonial powers? Their global agenda is paramount, their lack of empathy for ordinary people breathtaking.
Newspapers used to think their job was to help keep wealthy and powerful institutions honest. Now they climb into bed with them.
Earth Hour was brought into this world by corporations. Fairfax Media Limited – whose newspapers, magazines, and radio stations are supposed to report impartially on environmental issues – owns one-third of this annual green event.
Nine papers are being distributed by an upcoming save-the-world conference. They’re explicitly intended to influence the behaviour of world leaders at the Rio summit in June. But the claim that they represent the latest scientific thinking is a gross distortion.
How many more reports highlighting the IPCC’s flaws will it take before politicians draw the obvious conclusions? How many additional scandals must surface before political leaders realize that this body doesn’t deserve their trust?
There is now a small army of experts, activists, and bureaucrats whose economic lives depend on there being a climate crisis. Without such a crisis their jobs, their travel to exotic places, and their moments in the media spotlight would all disappear.
The scientists on this list either played some role in the 2007 Climate Bible or are helping to write the next one expected to be completed in 2013. In many cases, they’re doing dual duty.
All of them have a documented, public relationship with professional lobbyists.
In a single IPCC chapter we find an author affiliated the WWF, another with Greenpeace, and a third with the Environmental Defense Fund. Sure, this is a scientific document.
An activist group has been funding a particular corner of scientific research to the tune of $1 million a year for more than two decades. Do we really think this hasn’t influenced how those working in that field see the world?
When hundreds of Canadian scientists – and 12 science bodies – joined a World Wildlife Fund ad campaign they undermined their own authority. They became politically-motivated actors in a political discussion.
When did it become acceptable to pen violent fantasies about people with whom you disagree? When did it become OK to talk – luridly and out loud – about their death?
One of the most senior authors for the upcoming climate bible has spent the past 17 years cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund.
A news story tells us we should believe a report because a “Nobel Prize-winning climate scientist” is associated with it. But the Nobel turns out to be the same Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore – and the report’s findings are highly improbable.
Why does the media keep interviewing a meteorologist about droughts & floods instead of those with genuine expertise?
As the author of two books about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I am well placed to evaluate its 2013-2014 Assessment Report (aka AR5 – which stands for … Continue reading
30 years ago Greenpeace rented creaky fishing boats. These days it purchases $22-million custom-built mega-yachts. The shoestring voices in the environmental debate now belong to skeptical bloggers.
Drug trial results are closely scrutinized. Corporate financial statements are routinely audited. Yet science academy bureaucrats – and a lot of others who should have known better – have advised us to blindly trust IPCC reports.
If the climate bible includes significant mistakes, if it uses newspaper & magazine articles to make its case, if it relies on literature generated by activist organizations – then it is rather a different animal from the uber-respectable paragon of virtue so many journalists have described. Bamboozled by the PR machine that is the IPCC, they’ve passed along bad information to the public.
The relationship between Greenpeace and the IPCC is so close that not only are the activist group’s documents cited by the climate bible, the IPCC chairman has written a forward for a Greenpeace publication. Meanwhile, a senior Greenpeace official (whose entire career has been devoted to political activism), has served as an IPCC “scientific expert reviewer.”
The climate bible cites numerous documents written by the World Wildlife Fund to back up its arguments. But this document is supposed to be a rigorous, wholly scientific assessment.
A few weeks before the IPCC admitted its Himalayan glacier predictions were dead wrong, Time magazine profiled the glacier expert at the center of the storm. Rather than being hard-nosed & rigorous, the magazine fell for him hook, line & sinker.