Posted on 01/29/2010 4:36:15 PM PST by neverdem
Considered the climate Bible by governments around the world, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is meant to be a scientific analysis of the most authoritative research.
Instead, it references literature generated by Greenpeace - an organization known more for headline-grabbing publicity stunts than sober-minded analysis. (Eight IPCC-cited Greenpeace publications are listed at the bottom of this post.)
In one section of this Nobel-winning report, climate change is linked to coral reef degradation. The sole source for this claim? A Greenpeace report titled "Pacific in Peril" (see Hoegh-Guldberg below). Here the report relies on a Greenpeace document to establish the lower-end of an estimate involving solar power plants (Aringhoff).
When discussing solar energy elsewhere, the report references two Greenpeace documents in one sentence. Here it uses a Greenpeace paper as its sole means of documenting where the "main wind-energy investments" are located globally (Wind).
On this page, the report notes that while some research suggests wind power will generate between three and five percent of global electricity by 2030, a more optimistic forecast places this number at 29%. The six times more favorable estimate comes from GWEC, 2006 - a 60-page, photo-rich report co-authored by Greenpeace and the Global Wind Energy Council. (The latter describes itself as "the global wind industry trade association.") In fairness to the IPCC, even it rejected Greenpeace's numbers, choosing instead to use 7% in its analysis.
But the fact that this report relies on Greenpeace-generated copy isn't the only reason for concern. Here is an IPCC graphic:...
The fraud appears to thicken. I didn’t check the links at the source.
Sure could use some global warming here....7 with wind chill but feels lower....
Follow the money.
How do you get through to Obama’s ABCNNBCBS to simple “Tell the truth” about AGW and its profits (er, prophets) despite the socialism surrounding our political - not realistic - world?
Is socialism such a religion (bred through years in public school, universities, and their collective newsrooms of tens of thousands of self-reinforcing conversations?) that they simply CANNOT “see” the truth - even when their eyes show it to them?
Steely - Note that the source (..frakken..” is on your home page list of links. Good find!
The UN is at best a joke, in reality a total fraud and thoroughly corrupt. It needs to have new HQ, located in Harare.
Sane people need to keep the pressure on these bastards who are trying to steal our future and our liberty to create their supposed Socialist paradise.
He's been down so long, everything looks up to him.
"Bitt called and said to tell you you're full of it"
"And, oh, by the way...Scott Brown doesn't act like Lurch"
You're right - it's religion - waaaay past mere group-think...
Thanks for the ping!
¿¿¿¿¿¿?????
They see the truth, they are on a mission.
This is a war for the future shape of civilization, much like the WOT against the Islamic extremists.
Sharia is the Islamic rule, "Gaia First" is the Greenist rule. Facts don't matter.
This thread reports information from
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com ,
which is a very informative site I only discovered because it is one of the sites you maintain on your FreeRepublic home page.
Robt
Updates added.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
