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.