Lorne Gunter explains why in his
National Post article:
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.
...
Canadian researcher Steve McIntyre discovered earlier this week that the IPCC’s recent report on alternative energy — which asserted that it was possible to convert the world to 80% green energy by 2050 if politicians would simply tax conventional sources and spend billions on alternative sources — was lifted largely from Greenpeace reports.
...
Imagine the reaction, for instance, if a government had produced a fossil-fuel friendly report based on work by an oil sands engineer, without revealing the source, and had paid the same engineer to write its own summary of his initial work.
It may surprise the IPCC bureaucrats, but basing your reports solely on the works of like-minded activists is not really what peer-review process means:
t’s the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.
Meanwhile, the world's first carbon billionaire (Al Gore) claims that the media... isn't friendly enough to the "global warming" cause.
This would be the same media that uncritically fawned over his 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth -- which was over-hyped climate porn -- turning it into one of the most successful "documentaries" of all time and winning Gore the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize and an Academy Award.
And yet, wails Gore, the media aren't framing the climate debate correctly as a "struggle for the soul of America" between "Science and Reason" in one corner and "Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues" in the other.
Gore's attitude, typical of the totalitarian streak in the liberal left, is there's one "correct" position -- his -- and everyone else is a fraud, charlatan or in the pay of the oil industry.
It's sure encouraging that these climate crooks start to lose credibility. What's surprising is - how come they had all that credibility in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment