RSS

Greenpeace cited multiple times in IPCC's Third Assessment Report

30 Jan

After hearing about Greenpeace being cited in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, I went back and looked at the Third Assessment Report to see if they had been cited there as well. Turns out they were, at least four times. Three of them were from Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, and one was from Working Group III: Mitigation. The first is in working group II: Impact, section 12.1.4. Climate Trends:

“There is some evidence of long-term variations in the Australasian region in storm frequency and tropical cyclones (Nicholls et al., 1996a; Radford et al., 1996; Hopkins and Holland, 1997; Leighton et al., 1997).”

Radford et al is referenced as:

Radford, D., R. Blong, A.M. d’Aubert, I. Kuhnel, and P. Nunn, 1996: Occurence of Tropical Cyclones in the Southwest Pacific Region 1920-1994. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 35 pp.

They misspelled occurrence, not me. I can find this cited all over the Internet, but I cannot find the original. There were citations to support this claim other than Greenpeace.

Onto the next, also in Working Group II, section 16.1.3.1. The Arctic:

“Comprehensive interviews by Gibson and Scullinger (1998) have revealed notable impacts on food sources and natural environments of native Alaskan communities.”

Gibson and Scullinger are referenced as such:

Gibson, M.A. and S.A. Schullinger, 1998: Answers from the Ice Edge: The Consequences of Climate Change on Life in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Greenpeace Arctic Network, Anchorage, AK, USA, pp. 32.

I found that report here. There were no other citations to support their claim of “notable impacts on food sources and natural environments of native Alaskan communities”. The third Greenpeace reference from working group II, section 17.2.4.1. Coral Reefs:

“Moreover, the incidence of bleaching will rise rapidly, with the rate of increase highest in the Caribbean and slowest in the central Pacific region (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999).”

Hoegh-Guldberg are referenced as such:

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999: Climate Change, Coral Bleaching and the Future of the World’s Coral Reefs. Greenpeace International, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, 27 pp.

I found that here. There were no other citations to support their claim that “the incidence of bleaching will rise rapidly, with the rate of increase highest in the Caribbean and slowest in the central Pacific region”. The last Greenpeace reference was in Working Group III: Mitigation, Section 3.8.4.3.3 Wind Power:

“A report by Greenpeace and the European Wind Energy Association estimated 1,200GW could be installed by 2020 providing almost 3,000TWh/yr or 10% of the global power demand assumed at that time (Greenpeace, 1999).”

It is referenced as:

Greenpeace, 1999: Wind Force 10: a blueprint to achieve 10% of the world’s electricity from wind power by 2020. Greenpeace and European Wind Energy Association Report, Greenpeace, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

I looked online and the only place I could find this ‘study’ was in a Greenpeace press release, 5 October 1999. This citation openly references Greenpeace.

I don’t know how accurate these studies are or how rigorous the peer-review process was (if any existed). Clearly the IPCC’s reliance on Greenpeace is not just in the Fourth Assessment report.

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on January 30, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Tags:

6 responses to “Greenpeace cited multiple times in IPCC's Third Assessment Report

  1. Mr. Xyz

    January 30, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    This spoof of climate science may be of interest:

    http://climaterealists.com/?id=4960

     
  2. tty

    January 31, 2010 at 4:13 am

    The idea that 1200 GW installed windpower could deliver 3000 GWh per year is ridiculous. It requires about a 30% duty cycle, something even sea-based wind-power rarely achieves. 20%, i e about 2000 GWh is more realistic.

     
  3. David

    January 31, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Why is no-one picking up on the fact that wind turbines INCREASE CO2 emissions..? How come..?? Well – not only do they only produce meaningful power for the percentage of time identified by tty above, BUT for the rest of the time they have to have NEW fossil-fuelled backup. Furthermore, the wind don’t blow conveniently when its most needed – I’ve seen a figure in Professional Engineer magazine, which calculates that there are something like six weeks of windless days in the average winter…

     
  4. ClimateQuoter

    January 31, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Why aren’t they picking up on this? Because once these people hear ‘renewable resources’ or ‘alternative energy’ they start drooling. They don’t need to look into the facts, anything is better than evil oil.

     
  5. Benno

    July 26, 2010 at 12:56 pm

    Nice ad hominen. Can’t be bothered to look up the research so you’ll just question it based on its source. I guess when the facts aren’t on your side you do what you can.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: