Author Topic: Koblingen WWF/Greenpeace/IPSO og IPCC: Ugrei lobbyallianse  (Read 1757 times)

Telehiv

  • Global moderator
  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 3 045
  • Qui vivra verra
    • View Profile
Det er viktig å ikke miste fokus på hvilke uryddige og fordekte klimaalarmistiske organer med tendensiøs faktaformidling som strategi som opererer bak verdensopinionens rygg uten at media gjør jobben sin og spør hva i alle dager det er som foregår.

IPSOs alarmistiske kampanje i 2013
Vi kan her særlig ta for oss aktivistorganisasjonen International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO). I fjor på disse tider dukket nemlig IPSOs pressemelding opp (IPSO-"rapporten") - under skinn av å være selvstendig ifht presentasjonen av AR5 - men slett ikke så tilfeldig som man forsvarte seg med:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/research.cfm

Timing: IPCC hadde akkurat gått på den kanskje tyngste faglige smellen siden starten, og måtte forklare hvordan de kunne prestere å øke sin "vitenskapelige sikkerhet" for menneskelig påvirkning på klimaet samtidig som de måtte innrømme at deres CO2-estimater har blitt avslørt som betydelig overdrevne og feilaktige!
 
Avslørende omtale allerede i 2011
I 2011 fant lobbyorganet IPSO det betimelig å lansere en reinspikka skremselsrapport:
Fullversjon: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf
Her en kortere rapportversjon: http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1806_IPSOshort.pdf

Den internasjonalt kjente Donna Laframboise observerte rystet at "Det er de samme aktivistfolkene som egentlig stÃ¥r bak begge deler (les: IPSO og IPCCs indre krets), med den forskjell at i IPSO opptrer WWF, Greenpeace og ulike andre aktivistgrupper enda mer tydelig og i enda større konflikt med seriøse krav til dokumentasjon og vitenskapelige prinsipper."  

Ny propagandapakke i 2013
I 2013 kom altså en videreføring av 2011-skremslene, her kan dere også lese hele rapporten:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/IPSO-Papers-Combined-15.1.14.pdf
 
Her hjemme slukte f.eks. Dagens Næringsliv agnet og meldte (åpenbart uten den ringeste kildekritikk):
 
"Verdens hav brytes nÃ¥ ned i en raskere og mer omfattende takt enn noen tidligere har trodd. Og den store skurken er verdens CO2-utslipp, som fører til varmere og surere hav. Det er forskernes konklusjon i den siste rapporten fra International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO)." 

http://www.dn.no/nyheter/utenriks/2013/10/07/dodelig-miks-dreper-verdenshavene

Vi får hjelpe DN med litt kildekritikk:
Denne vedvarende bløffen - tatt i betraktning av at IPCC nylig hadde mer eller mindre rygget ut av alle sine tidligere alarmismer rundt dette - er såpass grov at vi må ta en nærmere titt på hva dette IPSO er, og hvem som står bak, ref. den tilsvarende IPSO-skremselskampanjen i 2011, da det også var en del oppstyr rundt IPCC-arbeidet og en rekke av deres alarmismepåstander ble falsifiserte og underkjente av en rekke forskere.

Og vi finner ikke uventet en nær allianse med "the usual suspects" (WWF, Greenpeace og tilhørende naturvernaktivister).
Koblingen mellom IPCC og IPSO er så uetisk at man sjokkeres fremdeles, trass i herding gjennom både Himalayagate, Boliviagate, Climategate #1 og #2, ad libitum...

Bestilt redningsaksjon for IPCC-prosessen
Og i 2013 dukker altså en IPSO-"rapport" igjen beleilig opp og gjenoppvekker IPCCs gamle skremsler, etter at IPCC har rygget baklengs ut av sine egne.
Da IPSO fant å ville gripe inn med sin rapport, hadde brede fagmiljø plukket IPCCs sviktende modellprojeksjonene i AR5 i stykker, og avviket mot observasjoner hadde bare økt siden AR4. Bak avsløringene av disse fallerte skremslene, der atmosfæren nekter å gjøre som IPCC sier og verdenshavene neppe forstår at de er invaderte av overskuddsvarmen i Trenberths hode, dukker imidlertid nå noen gamle aktivisttravere opp med sitt gamle "havet-går-til-helvete pga. CO2"-budskap.

Sentrale bakspillere og ukritiske medier: The Fishy, Wishy-Washy IPSO Report
Her kan dere se fra hvilken storebror DN hentet sin inspirasjon fra (og som vanlig når ressurssvake norske medier driver avskrift fra utenlandske medier; noen dager før Norge lanserer sin "egen tenking"....):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24369244

Her om det faktiske bakspillet, med Donna Laframboises ord:

The list of the 26 contributors to the IPSO panel of expert scientists is on page 10 of the report of the three day conference. The previous posts here seem to have attracted a lot of interest, so I thought Iâ??d have a yet deeper look at this panel for those following the story.

Letâ??s get the easy bit over with. Of the 26 contributors, we can immediately exclude half of them as non-experts:

Kelly Rigg is Executive Director of the Global Campaign for Climate Action.
Charlotte Smith is a Senior Accounts Director at Communications INC.
Mirella Von Lindenfels is Director of the The International Programme on the State of the Ocean, but alslo works at Communications INC, alongside Charlotte Smith.
Matt Gianni is a Policy Advisor at Deep Sea Conservation Coalition
Barry Gardiner is a British Member of Parliament, and Vice President GLOBE UK Global Legislators Organisation
Aurelie Spadone is a Marine Programme Officer at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
James Oliver is a Project Officer at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Kristina M Gjerde is High Seas Policy Advisor at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Patricio Bernal is Project Coordinator at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Dan Laffoley is a Senior Advisor at the International Union for Conservation of Nature
Conn Nugent is the Executive Director of the JM Kaplan Fund
Josh Reichert is Managing Director of the Pew Environment Group
Karen Sack is Director of international ocean conservation at the Pew Environment Group

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2011/06/the-fishy-wishy-washy-ipso-report.html

Remember, IPSO are selling this as "A high-level international workshop convened by IPSO met at the University of Oxford earlier this year. It was the first inter-disciplinary international meeting of marine scientists of its kind and was designed to consider the cumulative impact of multiple stressors on the ocean, including warming, acidification, and overfishing."

I have excluded most of the above names on the basis that they are palpably not marine scientists. There are a few who may once have been such experts, but are not involved in research, but in issue-advocacy for a coalition of ENGOs â?? the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

There are 13 names remaining.

Jelle Bijma http://www.awi.de/People/show?jbijma seems to have a sufficiently solid scientific background, even if his research interests â?? Ocean Warming and Acidification; Proxy Development and Innovation; The Earth System on Long Time Scales â?? are ones we see too much confidence about in the broader debate.
Score: 13-1

Phil Tranthan
also seems like a reasonable bet. http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/contact/staff/profile/PhilTrathan/
Score: 13-2

Itâ??s not clear what Prof. Tom Hutchinson does, or specialises in. But he works at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), a division of the UK Governmentâ??s  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/about-us/our-purpose.aspx

Our work directly supports delivery of the aquatic-related aspects of Defraâ??s key priorities and strategic objectives. As an executive agency, we play a vital role in securing healthy marine and freshwater environments for everyoneâ??s well-being, health and prosperity. This is achieved by providing evidence-based scientific advice, managing related data and information, conducting scientific research, and facilitating collaborative action through wide-ranging international relationships.
Score: 13-3

Which brings us to Ove Hoeghk-Guldberg, a professor and director of the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/

Unfortunately for Prof. Hoeghk-Guldberg, heâ??s let his reputation get spoiled by his ownblurring of science and activism during Anthony Watts tour of Australia:
The Tuesday night meeting in Brisbane on the WUWT Australian tour had a bit of unexpected fireworks courtesy of Aussie reef scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. The meeting started off with some protestors outside holding placards with the tired old messages claiming â??funding by big oilâ?â?¦etc. Professor Ove actually incited this on his blog, saying that â??The Climate Shifts crew and other scientists will be there en masse to record and debunk the lies that will be told.â?

Score: 14-3

Then thereâ??s Alex Rogers, the organiser of the IPSO thingâ?¦ whatever it is. Is he a scientist, or an activist? As Alex Cull pointed out in the comments on the previous post, sadly, Dr Rogerâ??s also blurs the lines between science and activism:
IPSOâ??s scientific director is Alex Rogers, Professor of Conservation Biology at Oxford University. According to his web page at Oxford Universityâ??s Dept of Zoology, he has also worked for Greenpeace and WWF, and in addition, currently holds a position with GLOBE International.   http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/staff/academics/rogers_ad.htm

It would be harder to come to this conclusion had the event he has organised had been the thing it was advertised as being. But when you make claims such as â??run by Scientists for the worldâ??, you start to look somewhat messianic.

Score: 15-3

Chris Yesson, a Postdoctoral Research Assistant at the Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London looks like a fairly sensible chap. Shame he go involved in this nonsense.
Score: 15-4

Kirsty Kemp is a colleague of Chris Yesson.
Score: 15-5

Derek Tittensor is a research scientists at the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the Computational Ecology and Environmental Science group at Microsoft Research. Fair enough, though I have my doubts about the UNEP and its WCMC.
Score: 15-6

Philip Chris Reid is a senior research fellow at the Sir Alasdair Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science, University of Plymouth. This press release from December â??09 says,
A new report looking at the relationship between the worldâ??s oceans and global warming is set to fire a stark warning shot across the bows ahead of the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. [...] The study, led by Professor Chris Reid, from the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS), the University of Plymouth and the Marine Biological Association (MBA), has found that both rising sea temperatures and a reducing ability of the oceans to absorb the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) may be leading to an acceleration of climate change. Drawing upon the research of over 100 of the leading oceanographers and scientists around the world, the work is co-authored by more than thirty experts from organizations in ten countries, such as the British Antarctic Survey and the Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany. The 150-page report has taken 18 months to produce and was initially commissioned by the WWF. It is unprecedented in its scale and scope, and examines evidence of changes in ocean temperature and ecosystems, rising acidification and methane levels, and massive shrinkage of the polar ice caps.

Sorry, Chris. By the standards set by environmentalists, you canâ??t claim to be engaged in scientific research free from some agenda.
Score: 16-6

Daniel Pauly is Professor of Fisheries at the University of British Columbia. According to his CV he was a Board Member of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Canada, 2004 to 2006.
Sorry, Daniel.
Score: 17-6

Tony Pitcher
is a colleague of Daniel Paulyâ??s at the University of British Columbia. http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/person/pitcher
Score: 17-7

William Cheung is a Lecturer in Marine Ecosystem Services at the University of East Anglia. According to his profile page at the UEA website, he has â??been a member of the IUCN Groupers and Wrasses Species Specialist Group since 2005″.
Sorry, Dr Cheung, but imagine if you had worked for a network of oil industry research organisationsâ?¦ Do you think youâ??d be regarded as a source of impartial comment on climate change?
Score: 18-7

Charles Sheppard is a professor at the University of Warwick. According to his profile page,
I hold a half-time position of Professor in the Department. The remainder of my time I work for a range of UN , governmental and aid agencies in tropical marine and coastal development issues.
Letâ??s give him the benefit of the doubt.

FINAL SCORE: 18-8.

But wait a minute. Havenâ??t all the members of this panel â?? never mind the 8 who donâ??t seem so confused about the difference between activism and science â?? merely been invited to this event simply because they have emphasised things like â??sustainabilityâ?? and â??ocean acidificationâ??, and â??climate changeâ??? And isnâ??t that why they have been invited? Isnâ??t the point of IPSO simply to ask researchers of a similar mind to take part, and then present their â??findingsâ?? as the result of a scientific enquiry?

I could do the same thing tomorrow. I could email my academic friends â?? the ones I know to be broadly sceptical of climate change politics, if not the science â?? and invite them to my house for coffee. â??Are you really worried about the end of the Worldâ??, I could ask. â??Not reallyâ??, they would say. I could write up their non-concern in an expensive brochure. I could then pitch it to the world as convincing evidence that â??things are not as bad as previously thoughtâ??. And the BBC, the Guardian, the Independent, the Times, the Telegraph, and the Daily Mail would report the findings, verbatim, without questioning it, wouldnâ??t they? Just as they have done here:

TILLEGG:
HER KOMMER EN OMTALE AV FORRIGE GANG INTERNASJONALE MEDIA HENGTE SEG PÃ? IPSOs ALARMISME, DVS FÃ?R IPCC NÃ? HAR KASTET OMTRENT ALLE DISSE TIDLIGERE KORTENE - SÃ?RGELIG DA AT AVISER SOM DN BITER PÃ? ETTERPÃ?:


The Independent:

Oceans on brink of catastrophe
Marine life facing mass extinction â??within one human generationâ?? / State of seas â??much worse than we thoughtâ??, says global panel of scientists


The Telegraph
Worldâ??s oceans move into â??extinction phaseâ??

The next generation may lose the opportunity to swim over coral reefs or eat certain species of fish, scientists have warned, as the worldâ??s oceans move into a â??phase of extinctionâ?? due to human impacts such as over-fishing and climate change.

ABC/AP:
Panel: Problems With Oceans Multiplying, Worsening
The health of the worldâ??s oceans is declining much faster than originally thought â?? under siege from pollution, overfishing and other man-made problems all at once â?? scientists say in a new report
.

The Guardian:

â??Shockingâ?? state of seas threatens mass extinction, say marine experts
Overfishing and pollution putting fish, sharks and whales in extreme danger â?? with extinction â??inevitableâ??, study finds.


The BBC:
Worldâ??s oceans in â??shockingâ?? decline
The oceans are in a worse state than previously suspected, according to an expert panel of scientists.


The Daily Mail:
Worldâ??s oceans in â??shockingâ?? state say scientists as they warn of marine extinction
The worldâ??s oceans are facing an extinction crisis as the result of a range of human impacts from over-fishing to climate change, scientists warned today.


SÃ¥ Donna summerer oppgitt:

And itâ??s the same everywhere. A little club of eco-warriors â??many, if not most, of whom are not scientists â??  is presented, across newspapers in every single country, as a panel of experts. The headlines have found their way into hundreds of thousands of twitter feeds.

Why didnâ??t journalists think to ask: what is IPSO; who are its members; and why should we regard their say as the final word
« Last Edit: 14.10.2014, 22:12:59 by Telehiv »

Bebben

  • Supermedlem
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Sv: Koblingen WWF/Greenpeace/IPSO og IPCC: Ugrei lobbyallianse
« Reply #1 on: 15.10.2014, 00:16:59 »
Donna skriver

Quote
But wait a minute. Havenâ??t all the members of this panel â?? never mind the 8 who donâ??t seem so confused about the difference between activism and science â?? merely been invited to this event simply because they have emphasised things like â??sustainabilityâ?? and â??ocean acidificationâ??, and â??climate changeâ??? And isnâ??t that why they have been invited? Isnâ??t the point of IPSO simply to ask researchers of a similar mind to take part, and then present their â??findingsâ?? as the result of a scientific enquiry?

Det er et godt poeng, og det gjelder neppe bare IPSO. Hvordan skjer utvelgelsen av folk som skriver Klimapanelets rapporter? Den er visst nokså udokumentert.

Litt OT, men vi er fremdeles blant aktivister: Richard Tol oppsummerer alt som er galt med Cooks "97-prosentstudie":
 
Quote
While earlier research had exposed severe problems with the data quality and analysis of the 97% consensus paper (Cook et al, 2013, Environmental Research Letters), this note finds the authors have contradicted themselves and that the data gathering invalidates all results.

Resten finnes hos Richard Tol.

Men akk hva hjelper det - de 97 prosent osv. er allerede blitt en "sannhet" i den offentlige bevissthet, slik målet var. Trøsten er at siden prediksjonene nå har slått feil, er det godt å vite at alle var enige - for da vet vi jo at alle hadde feil!

Jo dårligere tider, jo bedre skjemt! (Ernst Röhl)