Donna seems to be the only true journalist left reporting on the IPCC. How many other journalists noticed that 30% of the citations in the "gold standard" and all peer reviewed IPCC assessment report was grey literature? I am sure that ratio must be an indication of some sort of bias.
When there is a climate junkett in a smart resort, rooms are set aside for activist groups to proclaim their message. They lobby governments, some are tax-payer funded. Where is the voice of the people in all this?
There is so much circular reasoning that you don't know where to start. Scientists in CRU publish climate reports, those same scientists are IPCC authors. They get their own papers cited by the IPCC. This reinforces the view that their papers must be right - the IPCC says so.
The same with activist groups. They are only following what the best scientists (AKA IPCC) are saying. They are also speaking for the IPCC and providing 30% of their "scientific" papers.
In the finance industry, if you are providing advice about a merger you may not trade in the shares. In climate circles there are no such rules.
If the IPCC are just reporting on the science, why do they not let the scientists write the report? Why does it have to be re-written by the politicians? What science are they adding that the scientists didn't know? Why do the people reading these reports not know that they are being conned - especially as the flavour of this one was decided several years ago.
Her assertion that Hoegh-Guldberg 'has spent his career cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)' is a bit over the top, if you ask me, particularly when her very own link admits that he did just 1 (ONE) report for the WWF while a previous blog post by her on the same subject is far less conclusive about Hoegh-Guldberg actually getting paid.
Is not really hard evidence, is it? Not like Donna's ties to the Heartland Institute which we all know is Exxon funded.
Edit @ Ottawa Mike:
<
That is because the accusation is equally unclear. Lafromboise source is an earlier blog post which she wrote and which is far less certain about Hoegh-Guldberg actually getting paid then she claims now. She is also leaving out important details about co-authorships of some studies she mentions.
<<...are you saying he is not a full blown environmental activist?>>
Define "a full blown environmental activist?".
AR5 has 309 coordinating authors, lead authors and review editors (which makes Hoegh-Guldberg about 1/3 of 1 percent) . There are 30 chapters and each chapter has two coordinating authors. Hoegh-Guldberg’s chapter has 2 coordinating authors, 5 lead authors, and 2 review editors - so he is 1/9th of one chapter.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press-releases/i...
The telling thing is that you have no interest in whether he is right and his science is correct. You only care that his name appeared in some slander-rag blog - And, you expect people to take you seriously?.
The rats who fled the sinking ship of socialism in the 1980s crawled up on the environmental movement. These rats are the same environmentalists who run Green Peace and probably every other large environmental group. The former leader of Green Peace quit in disgust because he was probably actually interested in protecting nature instead of centralized government.
Obama is an Alynskiite whose only achievement was a half term as Senator and Community Organizer which is fancy way to say Marxist Instigator. He is a radical leftist, yet he is portrayed as a moderate. The politics of the left uses language to push their agenda. Political correctness is way to shout down their opposition. In their parlance, radical leftist becomes policy-neutral, or smart, or whatever.
Shame on that environmental activist for being an IPCC lead author.
I thought that environmental activists were in favor of the IPCC.
All one has to do to be considered an AGW cultist 'scientist' is promote the right agenda. Credentials are not necessary.
There's no clearer evidence that the entire UN climate issue is agenda driven politics. Science is supposed to be about verifiable conclusions from objective scientists. AGW cultist 'scientists' are anything but objective. This is why mother nature keeps humiliating the crap out of them. Too numerous examples of this to post here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lin...
Interesting. Seems that Lindzen was an IPCC author as well.
Somehow I don't remember you complaining about that.
Maybe, the IPCC committee uses folks who know their subject, and would reject any report, or part of a report, that presented a partisan viewpoint.
Concerning that article he states, "We have to act now!" That method is taught in every car salesman's class. Get them to sign on the dotted line and think about the consequences later. Car salesmen are not unique, every sales class will pretty much say the same thing. Salesmen definitely would not be considered unbiased.
"Run! Run you sheep! Here comes the Wolf!" That gets fools every time.
Donna Laframboise is an independent journalist. She does what journalists are supposed to do; she digs into things. Here is her recent report on a coordinating lead author for the recently released IPCC report on the impacts of climate change: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2014/03/30/the-wwf-activist-in-charge-at-the-ipcc/
The IPCC has been described as a policy-neutral UN body whose reports are based on careful peer-reviewed science in an objective and transparent manner.
So I'd be really interested to hear how it can be defended that one of the highest ranking authors of the IPCC report is a full blown environmental activist.
Maybe you could somehow show that the WWF (or Greenpeace) is a neutral and objective organization? Or maybe you could show that there are IPCC authors who work for Exxon (for balance)?
Lay it on me.
