IPCC Lead Author is Greenpeace PR Agent?

Andrew Weaver, a longtime Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Lead Author, who proudly wears his green heart on his sleeve, now appears to be peddling Greenpeace propaganda:

I have mentioned previously that (the currently being written IPCC AR5) Lead Author Weaver is a candidate for the BC Provincial Green Party (and has accepted the position of Deputy Leader thereof); but this surely goes beyond the pale!

Here’s an excerpt from Greenpeace’s intro [Warning: you have to accept a Greenpeace cookie before you can view the page] to the polemic Weaver’s pushing now:

Point of No Return
The massive climate threats we must avoid

[...]

The global renewal energy scenario developed by Greenpeace – the Energy [R]evolution – shows how to deliver the power and mobility these dirty projects are promising without the emissions and the destruction … not only faster, but also at a lower cost. The clean energy future made possible by the development of renewable energy will only become a reality if governments rein in investments in dirty fossil fuels and support renewable energy.

The world is clearly at a Point of No Return. Either replace coal, oil and gas with renewable energy, or face a future turned upside down by climate change.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

=======

[UPDATE] Just in case you missed it, be sure to take a look at Greenpeace’s pre-inauguration message to Obama. As Donna Laframboise has commented regarding their “five-point plan”:

In Greenpeace’s twisted universe, however, babies are polluters and plant food is poison.

According to Greenpeace, the President of the United States should ensure that heating, cooking, and transporting kids to school becomes unaffordable. Why? Because our health, homes, and countries are “at risk” from climate change.

Yeah, that sounds smart. Let’s treat a child’s potential fever by cutting off both her legs now.

Many of the “findings” of previous IPCC Assessment Reports have depended on the “expert judgment” of the Authors. YMMV, but the view from here, so to speak, is that Weaver’s apparent endorsement of this kind of advocacy certainly calls into question his judgment – “expert” or otherwise.

But on the bright side, I suppose – while “objective” is not an attribute that could possibly come to mind when considering Weaver’s contribution(s) to AR5 – at least he is “transparent”, even if the IPCC is not.

About these ads

5 thoughts on “IPCC Lead Author is Greenpeace PR Agent?

  1. If you look at the Greenpeace website petropolis-film.com, one of the “webisodes” featured is by Andrew Weaver.The same video is on YouTube and was uploaded on 7th May 2009, described as being part of Greenpeace’s “Stop the Tar Sands” campaign, so it looks like he’s been a de facto spokesman for them for a while now.

    As an aside, it’s interesting that just over 2 minutes into the video he repeats the IPCC’s prediction about mass extinctions of species because of global warming:

    “Take that one step further, between about 9 and 25% of all species on this planet are likely committed to extinction already, because of the fact that we’re going to warm by about 0.6, 0.7 degrees more anyway…”

    Donna addressed this claim thoroughly in her “Extinction Fiction” post:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/10/09/extinction-fiction/

    (I’m working on another blog post about extinctions, so am automatically tuned to noticing this whenever it comes up!)

    • Hi Alex,

      Well, I guess I could very safely remove the ? from the title of this post! Talk about conflict of interest, eh?! Weaver certainly takes the prize, doesn’t he?!

      That video is quite something. Greenpeace Canada had a fair bit of help from a very generous US friend, the Oak Foundation. Oak to Greenpeace:

      Phase Out Tar Sands Campaign 2007 USD 436,675
      Stop the Tar Sands Campaign 2010 USD 424,373

      It looks as though Oak has very generously seeded many Canadian “acorns” since 2005, including a Jan. 1/09 – Jun. 30/10 grant:

      Global Campaign for Climate Action USD 2,500,000 for the purpose of:

      [Mobilizing] civil society and public opinion in Canada to support transformational change and rapid action to save the planet from dangerous levels of climate change. The GCCA will facilitate civil society to undertake massive public organising, rigorous and rapid analysis, nimble coordination and targeted, effective campaigning at all levels. [emphasis added -hro]

      And much, much more (I’ll try and do a post in the next day or so with some highlights!) But I digress …

      Glad you found Donna’s extinction fiction posts. When I saw your excellent first in this series of posts on this a few weeks ago, I meant to drop by your place and mention it to you :-)

  2. Pingback: Meet ‘One of the World’s Foremost Climate Scientists’ « NoFrakkingConsensus

  3. As it relates to the current version of Greenpeace, more specifically Greenpeace USA, it is a good idea to keep in mind that this organization is not your father’s traditional old whale-saving outfit. More accurate to call it Greenpeace née Ozone Action. For those of you unaware of that problem, please see this article from 2000: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080700-01.htm

    Then notice in this web archive bio page ( http://web.archive.org/web/20100817224309/http:/www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/experts/ ) how the current GP USA executive director and research director – Phil Radford and Kert Davies – worked at Ozone Action. It’s necessary for me to use the archive page to show this, since the Ozone Action reference has been somewhat recently scrubbed from Radford’s bio paragraphs.

    Long story very short, Ozone Action, in association with anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, has every appearance of being the epicenter of the successful smear of skeptic climate scientists. That is to say, the accusation claiming skeptics are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about AGW.

    So, not only would there be a question of Andrew Weaver being an agent of Greenpeace ideology on AGW, we would also be prompted to ask whether he endorses Greenpeace’s decidedly anti-science tactic of character assassination directed at AGW critics. He wouldn’t be alone if he does. I pointed out how IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele apparently does that in my 2011 article here: “Climate Science and Corruption” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/climate_science_and_corruption.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s