Many who follow the subject – and not just the usual climate change deniers – expressed concern that the IPCC, a body set up by the UN to provide scientific evidence for government decisions, had allowed itself to appear compromised by association.
This was then was compounded by a press release for the report which suggested that renewable sources alone, without nuclear power, could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050.
Full article here
Leading climate change group used Greenpeace campaigner to write 'impartial' report on renewable energy
By David Derbyshire Environment Editor, UK Daily Mail
The United Nation’s climate change body was at the centre of a new row today after it admitted using a Greenpeace campaigner to help write an ‘impartial’ report on green energy.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study last month claiming that the world could meet nearly 80 per cent of its energy by 2050 from renewable sources such as wind farms and solar panels.
But the full version of report published this week revealed that one of the lead authors was an employee of Greenpeace – a group that fiercely opposes nuclear power and which has campaigned on the perils of global warming for decades.
The IPCC loses its last credibility
By Lorne Gunter, National Post
The period from November 2009 to March 2010 was a bad time for climate-change alarmists. That four-month period included the posting of thousands of emails and computer files from leading climate scientists showing that they had been cooking their global-warming data, working together to keep independent researchers from examining their raw figures and pressuring academic journals against publishing studies that contradicted the man-made climate-change orthodoxy.
Also during that time, it was shown that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had included questionable data on Himalayan glacier melt in its major 2007 climate assessment report and that it had done so deliberately to provoke government leaders to speed up environmental legislation. Indian climate scientist Murari Lal, the scientist in charge of the IPCC’s glacier chapter, admitted he was aware at the time that the melt prediction had not been peer-reviewed, but included it anyway because “we thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
By the end of March 2010 it had been shown that at least 16 claims of impending climate doom in the IPCC’s vaunted 2007 report had been based on work done by environmental activists, most of which had not received independent reviews before being swallowed whole by the UN climate body. For instance, the IPCC’s insistence that up to 40% of the Amazon rain forest was under imminent threat came from a World Wildlife Fund-International Union for the Conservation of Nature joint report written by a scientist-consultant and a freelance environmental journalist.
