Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?" UK Telegraph, James Delingpole
- (Masada being where a mass suicide is said to have taken place in ancient times. ed.)
"Just in case your only information sources are RealClimate or Guardian Environment let me explain, briefly, what has been happening out here on Planet Reality. In a nutshell (Greenies), you’ve been caught with your trousers down yet again, viz:
An official IPCC report (released May 9, 2011) bigging up renewable energy as the power source of the future turns out to have been lead-authored by an activist from Greenpeace and based
- not on solid science
but a wish-fulfilment fantasy scenario devised by,
- you guessed it, Greenpeace.
Here’s how the press release of the IPCC’s Summary For Policymakers reported its findings:
Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.
This was uncritically reported by its amen corner in the MSM, led of course by the BBC’s Richard Black and the Guardian. But others more diligent smelt a rat – among them the mighty Steve McIntyre whose magisterially contemptuous blogpost on the subject has been keeping climate sceptics such as Bishop Hill, WUWT, Rex Murphy, Ronald Bailey
- and Mark Lynas busy all week.
Mark Lynas? Not the same eco activist Mark Lynas who once threw a custard pie in Bjorn Lomborg’s face and was responsible for advising the Maldives cabinet to pose for that nauseatingly disingenuous publicity shot where they’re all under water (because, like, the Maldives are being drowned due to global warming: except, of course they’re not)? Yep, that one. But on this occasion, at least, even as committed an eco zealot as he has been forced to concede that IPCC has done its reputation as the “gold standard” (copyright: B Obama) of international climate science few favours:
"The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course
- have been screaming blue murder.
Additionally, the Greenpeace/renewables industry report is so flawed that it should not have been considered by the IPCC at all. Whilst the journal-published version looks like proper science, the propaganda version on the Greenpeace website has all the hallmarks of a piece of work which started with some conclusions and then set about justifying them. There is a whole section dedicated to ‘dirty, dangerous nuclear power’, and the scenario includes a complete phase-out of new nuclear globally, with
- no stations built after 2008."...
It is a good point well made. Putting a guy from Greenpeace in charge of writing the supposedly neutral, scientifically-based report on which governments are going to base their energy policy is like putting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in charge of a report entitled Whither Israel? It is, in fact, yet another scandal of Climategate proportions. But you’d be amazed how many people there are out there who
- still don’t quite see the broader significance of this.
Here, for example, is the characteristically wet response from the Economist’s Babbage:
THE release of the full text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Renewable Energy this week has led to a new set of questions about the panel’s attitudes, probity and reliability: is it simply a sounding board for green activists? The answer is no—but that doesn’t mean it’s without serious problems.
Er, no, actually, Babbage. The answer is “yes.” Since its very foundation, the IPCC has been a sounding board for green activists. That is indeed its purpose. It has no remit to investigate whether or not climate change is significantly man-made and whether this constitutes a threat serious enough to handicap the global economy with massive tax and regulation because
- it takes all those as givens:
- Climategate; the point of
- Africagate et al;
The Man Made Global Warming industry is a crock, a scam on an epic scale, fed by the world’s biggest outbreak of mass hysteria, stoked by politicians dying for an excuse to impose more tax and regulation on us while being seen to “care” about an issue of pressing urgency, fuelled by the shrill lies and tear-jerking propaganda of activists possessed of no understanding of the real world other than a chippy instinctive hatred of capitalism, given a veneer of scientific respectability by post-normal scientists who believe their job is to behave like politicians rather than dispassionate seekers-after-truth, cheered on by rent-seeking businesses, financed by the EU, the UN and the charitable foundations of the guilt-ridden rich, and promoted at every turn by
- college lecturers,
- organic muesli packets,
- Walkers crisps,
- the BBC,
- Al Gore,
- the Prince Of Wales,
- David Suzuki,
- the British Antarctic Survey,
- Barack Obama,
- David Cameron and
- Knut – the late, dyslexic-challenging, baby polar bear, formerly of Berlin Zoo.
And you really don’t need to be a contrarian or an out-there conspiracy theorist or a hard-core libertarian or a rampant free-market capitalist or a dyed in the wool conservative to think this way any more. This is reality. This is how it is. This is where all the overwhelming evidence points. So what kind of a bizarro, warped, intellectually challenged, cognitively dissonant, eco-fascistic nutcase would you have to be to think otherwise?
Look, I’m sorry to be blunt all you Greenies (you know how normally polite and respectful I am to you and your cause) but don’t you think the charade has gone on long enough? Do you not think, maybe, that given that the IPCC is the basis of all your so-called “science” on climate change, and given that the IPCC has been proven dozens of times now to have been hijacked by activists with about as much of a handle on objective reality as Syd Barrett locked in a cupboard during a particularly bad acid trip, it mightn’t be time finally to
- do the decent thing?
Either come over to the side of reality, truth and climate scepticism (as your Lynas has sort of done) and admit you’re wrong. Or gather together in your last redoubt with your Hansens and your Gores and your Porritts and all the other die hards and do the only other honorable thing: show the courage of your convictions by staging a Climate Masada."
Reference: 6/14/11, "IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke," Climate Audit, by Steve McIntyre
7/24/2009, "Insurance and reinsurance in a changing climate," Encyclopedia of Earth, Canada Institute of Woodrow, V. Haufler
"Jeremy Leggett of Greenpeace International was one of the first to make the link between insurance losses and global warming. In 1992, he began to urge the insurance industry to take action against global warming, making numerous presentations at industry conferences. He published a widely noticed article citing those earlier insurance studies and linking their results to climate change in an effort to mobilize insurers. In his manifesto, he argued that the standard response of raising premium rates and deductibles, and restricting the terms and conditions for insurance policies, was a shortsighted solution to a major problem. He believed the long-term health of the industry depended on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to prevent, and not accommodate, climate change. At this time, Greenpeace was looking for a business group to organize in opposition to the fossil-fuel interests that adamantly resisted efforts to limit carbon emissions....
Political activism through such fora as the UNEP III is a part of a pro-active strategy, and the work of the Ceres coalition [the Soros group] is another face of this. This strategy looks on government not as deep pockets to pay for losses in a disaster, but as a regulatory institution to force change on society as a whole. The originators of the insurance-environmental alliance have expertise in this area....
Frank Nutter of the Reinsurance Association of America was the primary liaison between the U.S. industry and activists such as Greenpeace....
"The impact of climate change need not be entirely negative, however. In fact, some have argued that climate change is a boon to insurers because more people will need insurance. They may also find new opportunities as entrepreneurial insurers devise new products for climate mitigation, such as
- policies to insure carbon credits in
- newly established exchange mechanisms....
In Europe, the insurance industry has been more proactive [than the US] in changing their policies to respond to climate change, and in pressing governments to act on this issue....
In March 2009 a non-profit coalition of insurance firms, NGOs, and research institutes known as Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII) (part of the European Climate Forum founded by WWF among others) urging governments to consider a $5 billion per year global climate change insurance program, which would
- help developing countries
cover their losses due to extreme weather....
Jeremy Leggett, the Greenpeace activist who lobbied the re-insurance industry at least as early as 1992, is from the UK. His profile from the UK Guardian says after he left Greenpeace he became the BIGGEST SOLAR COMPANY IN THE UK (because he 'cared'). AND! HE CARES SO MUCH HE HAS A CARBON TRADING BUSINESS!
- CNN HIRED HIM in 2007!!!
"Coming to the view that successful green businesses were badly needed in the global fight to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, he set up Solarcentury, currently the UK's
- largest solar solutions company (1997-present)....
- most respected green energy boss.""...