The Details of Greenpeace & IPCC Collaboration Keeps Leaking Out - Pachauri Still Misleading Public

Read here.  The IPCC objectives are not climate science but instead political objectives of its green creators and fanatics. The UN's IPCC is infected by the Big Green machine's activist personnel and alumni. To make it so, Pachauri keeps defending the fringe green elements (and their non-scientific techniques) involved in the IPCC's climate reporting.

"Pachauri has systematically misled the entire world about how his organization writes its reports. He has insisted that these reports are based only on peer-reviewed literature when this is simply not the case...He has boasted that his organization is utterly transparent – but an InterAcademy Council committee that took a close look at the IPCC last year concluded otherwise – before recommending that Pachauri should step down...Pachauri has said IPCC reports are written by the world’s top scientists when, in fact, many of those involved are 20-something grad students, green activists, and people appointed with an eye to filling “diversity” quotas...In yesterday’s article Pachauri dismissed concerns that a lead author of a recent IPCC report is a Greenpeace activist..."

Comments

[bryanleyland@mac.com]

What really annoys me about all this is that the Greenpeace-based report is raving nonsense. It is nonsense largely because the Implication of what they claim is that there is some low (no) cost efficient method of storing large quantities of electricity for long periods. This is needed because renewable energy is intermittent and seasonal. Peak demand periods rarely coincide with peaks in renewable energy generation. For instance, in northern latitudes, solar power is a maximum in the summer and peak demand is a maximum in the winter.

No long-term storage technology exists or is even on the horizon.

An elementary peer review of the paper would have showed this and would have given the lie to the whole thing.

[kramer]

"The IPCC objectives are not climate science but instead political objectives of its green creators and fanatics. "

Indeed. I just read on a UN website that (I'm paraphrasing) 'sustainable development is in many ways the successor to the 'New International Economic Order.'

[Russell C]

It gets thicker. As I pointed out in my mid-June American Thinker article, one of the two people associated with a specific smear of skeptic scientists is also a former worker of the enviro-activist group that merged with Greenpeace USA in 2000. Please see: "There is a Cancer Growing on the IPCC and Al Gore" http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/there_is_a_cancer_growing_on_the_ipcc_and_al_gore.html