Mark Lynas, the climate activist who once threw a custard pie into the face of Bjorn "Skeptical Environmentalist" Lomborg, has found himself under fire from other climate activists. Earlier this week it emerged that a report on renewable energy for the IPCC had drawn heavily on an earlier paper authored by Greenpeace activist …
I like the comparison
I like the comparison with court jesters
NGOs no jesters
they keep using the same punch-line, and it isn't even funny.
Think I got lost
Dumping totally unrelated images in the middle of an article?
Am I on cracked.com or something?
Frothinggreenies are go!
Depends what you mean by "greenie", really. You see to me, it means someone who cares about the environment. And being a very pro-nuclear person, slightly skeptical about AGW and caring about the environment you can understand my not liking Greenpeace being perceived as representative of environmentalists generally. There are many of us who consider ourselves environmentalists who get extremely annoyed with Greenpeace. I like what they do to try and stop whaling. I like that they campaign against GM crops (although I am against them for reasons of patenting of food, dangers of reducing genetic diversity and environmental damage due to more potent herbicides / pesticides and Greenpeace are often against them because they think it will directly harm your health). But when it comes to the climate and energy production, Greenpeace really doesn't seem to be very good for the environment. Frothing, yes. Green, not entirely.
greenie != someone who cares about the environment
Fair do's to your interpretation, but to me a greenie is politically motivated not environmentally.
You are not a greenie, you are a person who cares about the environment.
I recycle because I hate waste (Our household of 3 generates about 1 binbag of landfill waste per fortnight) and fill the blue bin in the same period, plus 1trip to the tip^H^H^H recycling centre per month to get rid of those tetrapak's that the recycling collection won't take but the tip will.
I am also pronuclear (see other posts)
I am VERY skeptical about AGW as reported (yes climate is changing, planet earth is a dynamic system, yes humankind has had an effect - we are part of a dynamic system, are we to blame? no idea, take out all of the other inputs to the system and let's see, is taxation the way to go? NO! Is that piece of research valid? Let's see how it was paid for, whether it was correctly reviewed and if the results are repeatable.)
I am a meat eater - though I believe if you are going to kill an animal, have decency to use it all (anyone who wears a fur coat should be willing to eat the rest of the animal - mink fillet anyone?)
My apologies if you thought I was classifying you within the category of political slime I call frothinggreenies.
Just more proof of the eco-activist+renewables corporate corruption complex
There needs to be a full investigation of the share ownership of all the renewables’ companies in Europe and links to environmental groups.
One example of this is the interest of the WWF and other organisations in carbon offsets;
(Two ex-WWF executives now control the UK’s Met. Office)
In Italy there has been a Mafia investigation into the Calabrian interests of one company,
a renewables’ subsidiary of which has as Chairman the person in the upper house of the UK Parliament who then oversaw the CRU climategate whitewash.
Nothing so shapes a person’s judgement as their own personal interest.
If you want to implement a program that will make you a billion dollars, make sure the head of the approval process stands to make 10 million if it is approved.
Then of course to find the highest level of corruption, investigate how Cameron's own father-in-law stands to profit from the green scam.
"What attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?"
People start businesses to make a profit. They start charities, trusts, institutes or foundations if they don't expect to make a profit.
The profit is only there because politicians were hoodwinked into believing there was a problem, and the taxpayers have to guarantee profit for something that is unviable, and that no rational person would invest in. Otherwise governments could have, y'know, built more houses, repaired the roads, built a new radar telescope - all the things governments normally do.
You don't seem to be familiar with the concept of "rent seeking".
When terrorists flew planes into buildings in 2001, people considered that it might have been perpetrated by the US government in order to consolidate its political power. That's a conspiracy theory that is most unlikely to be anywhere near the truth. More likely the powermongers in the goverment asked "How can we exploit this event to consolidate our power?" They didn't cause it, but once it happened they immediately sought ways to profit from it. You know, the old business motivational mentality of "every failure is an opportunity" kind of thinking?
The same thing has happened with the environmental lobby. While scientists were DEBATING the degree to which humans were causing or accelerating climate change, with valid arguments being raised by both sides, opportunists in business and government were seeking ways to profit from this highly visible and emotive issue - on both sides. As a result, the science is now hampered by politics and the integrity of any research into the subject is now compromised by special interests. In just the same way any 9/11 investigation must necessarily be compromised. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's simple human nature - how can we get the most out of this bucket of shit?
Companies and governments alike are now jumping on the AGW bandwagon to impose taxes, utility price hikes and reduce freedoms - all in the name of "preserving the environment". Just as "think of the children" has become a catchcall for invidious oppression, so too is "think of the environment" going down the same path.
So your dismissal of the "denialist" agenda is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete and utter bullshit, because exactly the same points could be made about the environmentalist agenda too. You might well accuse me of being paid by the oil companies to oppose the AGW agenda - but they haven't paid me a cent, in fact I hate the bastards. I'm a "denier" because the debate could not be resolved scientifically before the politics weighed in - and now everything about it is suspect. So, to round it off:
Do you know how absurd the environmentalist agenda and conspiracy theories sound? You, know, Occam's Razor applies perfectly- more realistically, all these people have profits to make and power to gain, there is no need for conspiracy theories, and the problem is highly exaggerated.
Ah yes, that mob.
Originally the World Wildlife Fund, then the WorldWide Fund for Nature (now airbrushed from history at their site) and now "just the WWF" according to themselves.
If anyone wanted to know whether it was the animals or the politics that they really cared about, that says it all for me.....
Didn't they dabble in wrestling too, a while back? Or something.
So we are all at the mercy of Big Green, huh?
Good luck with that.
Chickens and eggs
"People started green businesses because of the environment scare."
No they were started because of environmental concern. Concern is not the same as a scare.
Once you have an industry based on concerns, then clearly the way to pump up the revenue etc is to pump up the concern until it becomes a scare.
Get the Great Unwashed on your side and the politicians soon start throwing around the money so they don't get labeled as deniers.
I was a Greenpeace supporter (giving them $) for about 15 years because they seemed to be generally doing useful stuff. When they got too carried away with the climate change stuff I stopped supporting them.
Anyone trying to approach this game from a slightly rational point of view soon gets shouted down.
ROFLMA - He said
"Berkley" and "climate skeptic" in the same sentence without a negative between them.
EU gravy train
What on earth made us think it was a good idea?
Missing from the article...
Any discussion as to whether the conclusions of the report were correct. Isn't that part important?
This is the process used to decide is a report is correct or not.
In this case the peer review was lead by the author of the original report - Guess what... it was found to be absolutely correct!
Yes, but the _article_
was about the process, the people and procedures, behind the report, which must be considered first.
If the contents were POOMA then surely you don't want to do an in-depth smell test of the findings?
It may very well be correct
Which is exactly the point he was trying to make, because the fact that the argument is being reviewed by the exact same people that are making the argument that any results even if they are correct will be looked at with suspicion because they weren't reviewed by impartial people. Personally I don't buy the climate change nonsense so I guess I'm what they have now labelled a "denier" which many nutcases in the climate movement would quite happily equate to a Nazi, which I'm fine with as long as I can label them "delusionists"
No, not in context
The article was dealing solely with the corruption involved in producing the report.
Try reading to the end next time - you won't be caught out posting a comment when you've only read half the article. The words "Next page" are useful to remember. Or if that's too complicated, look for an arrow pointing right.
I clicked on the picture of the glove puppet and the headline Governments pay hippies to lobby them - a fair summary of the corruption described here.
Follow the money - round and around and around.
RE: It may very well be correct
I've seen a commenter pull a Godwin before, but this appears to be a Godwin that was pulled by a character that exists entirely within a comment.
The report said renewables can supply most of our energy requirements in 2050, IF we go back to the Stone Age and nobody ever washes or travels.
Maybe that's "correct" - but it's not going to happen: even in a Greenpeace activist's wildest dreams.
You seem to have missed the story somewhat. The IPCC uses biased Greenpeace and WWF hippie activists to produce misleading propaganda, when it's supposed to present pols with a range options. The taxpayer is then mugged so more propaganda can be produced to lobby for useless and unviable technology, so the taxpayer can be mugged all over again.
Sooner or later this carousel stops.
Re: Sooner or later this carousel stops.
Seen the reports from Greece this week? Notice the German vote against nukes?
The carousel will run out of money in the next year or two. The lights will start going out nearer the end of the decade. Jesters are fine for entertainment, but you can't build a system of government around them. At least, not for long.
in fairness (to "peer reviewing" ones self)
maybe Sven Tenske is schizophrenic!
Schizophrenia is more about hallucinations than split personality.
But I can understand how seeing things that aren't these would come in very handy for his job.
ho's who in the zoo
"The perspective missing here is that NGOs are now the establishment, their views chime perfectly with those of the elite."...
OK I'll bite. Who are the élite' and what, exactly, is élite'about them ?
"Elite" is a right-wing code word for "Liberal" or "Progressive". Sarah Palin and Glen Beck are always talking about the elites. The author is missing his calling in not working for a News Corporation publication.
Re: Code Word
Reading too much into this.
Re: Code word
In UK politics, it is a left-wing code word for anyone who achieves high standards and then goes on to enjoy the rewards that this brings.
Almost universally, it is a code word for anyone who is better off than me for reasons that I consider unfair.
In America - maybe, but even there you'd be reading too much into it. In a UK publication I think you're not only imaging something that isn't there, you're bringing along your own prejudices along with it.
1 a group of people considered to be superior in a particular society or organization:
the country's educated elite
There may have been others before Orwell who talked about words being redefined to destroy not just their meaning, but also the concepts behind them, but Orwell's work is one of the most famous. Well it might not be in the same context, but here you are doing your part to redefine the word elite because some political groups with an axe to grind find the word to be awkward. They would prefer to be seen as one of the people but they cannot argue that the best of the best should not be the ones to manage a country and that presents them with a logical paradox. So they set about to change the meaning of the word and in that way it cannot be used in argument against their own ambitions. When someone argues that the elite of their fields should run the country what instead will be heard is that 'liberals' should run the country ...
So well done, you're doing Glen Beck's work for him.
Re: Code Word
No, it's a simple recognition that the SW1 bubble - especially the front benches on both sides - are from upper/middle class backgrounds, privately-educated, with a significant proportion of Oxford PPE graduates, and little or no experience outside of politics.
This is not representative of the population at large, it's not even representative of ex-Oxbridge Old Boys, but it is a distinct self-appointed ruling class which answers only to itself. You may have noticed this in the way that policies are formulated.
Personally, I disagree with the term "elite", since they're not, but "unnacountable groupthinkers, nepotists and cronyists" is too long to use in a Tweet.
I do 'buy' the climate change stuff - but I agree with you here.
What is wanted is proper peer reviewed science so that we can have a proper peer reviewed response.
Bear with me while I presume we have a problem. Then we're going to need a solution and that'll cost - us the tax payers. Watching the subsidies going into a spiral of self congratulatory back patting/scratching helps no one.
Well except those with an axe to grind.
An axe to grind
Ok, I prefer a 3 1/2 lb half peeling axe but any axe will do. First, don't use one of those high speed electric grinders as you'll just overheat it and lose the temper of the blade, ruining the axe. A pedal grinding wheel with a water drip is probably best if you can find one but a file and hand whetstone will do. Ok, keep your nose to the grindstone and put on a 25 - 30 degree convex grind. Don't worry if you've got a single bit axe, just put your haft and edge on the table and if the edge touches about 1/3 from the heel, you've got the hang of it.
Axe grinding, part art and part science. The best part is there's nothing better than having your peers review your work and find it of high quality. Perhaps if the folks involved in climatology took the same pride in their work as the axe grinders I know, there wouldn't be a problem. Then again maybe that's the difference between confidence and arrogance.
The big problem with that ...
The real big problem though is that Climate Change / Global Warming has now become such a quasi-religious ground for so many loons that the chances of getting any real, unbiased science out of any area remotely related with the subject is almost nil. Even those scientists performing real, unbiased research are likely to find themselves subject to the ravings of those who refuse to see anything other than their own rabid view of the subject when it comes to peer reviews of their documents.
... flame because ... well, we'll need to keep warm somehow when the next ice age comes knocking (soon if you believe the research...)
Don't the French know what to do with that sort of thing? And just where the bloody hell is my clean,free energy resource anyway?
Although this is expressly directed at the green lobby it's not a green problem.
There are many areas of govt funding where both the "scientific" argument is poorly peer reviewed and the govt pays lobbyists to argue for more funding.
The global warming bandwagon is just the most recent of many.
It's the process of science and government that's at fault - the particular reason is almost irrelevant as long as the merry go round keeps moving.
That's not to say I don't have problems with the climate change debate.... Just that the issue Andrew has written about is far more fundamental that that.
>> The global warming bandwagon is just the most recent of many.
Putting climate change to one side (there are many other examples - smoking, diet, etc) the crux of the issue - and it is especially prevelant in the EU system but also at a national level - is that NGOs that lobby the government can end up being funded by the very same government. This is a conflict of interest and often creates a cyclic dependency where the organisation pushes for more influence and control in order to get more funding, ad infinitum.
The fact that they use such blatant bad science and get away with it severely damages the reputation of science itself.
Adding a high level of transparency of the funding for these NGOs would go a long way to highlighting the problems. To fix them we need to start by breaking the government-funding cycle and have proper - independent - scientific analysis of their claims.
please can we have a popcorn icon for all AGW/denier type article ?
It would also be useful for iphone/ipad vs android et al articles as well.
BTW for the uneducated like myself what does "pull a Godwin" mean ?
Google failed to illuminate me
Paris cos google illuminates her
...Wikipedia gets the rebound.
Since when did
the World Wrestling Federation care about green energy?
I find disturbing similarities between IPCC and Family Radio, the religious organization that "predicted" the end of the world for May 21. At least, in FR's case, the end-of-world antics are only originating from the founder, and many staff members pretend that they don't hear him. The IPCC, on another hand, revels in catastrophism.
Some very dodgy science
Southern Hemisphere atmospheric CO2 has increased approx 18% since the mid-seventies.
According to figures here
Australia burned approximately 3 times the amount of liquid fuels in 2010 than it did in 1977.
So an increase in annual fuel use rising to 300% of the 1977 figure can only be correlated to an overall 18% increase in atmospheric CO2 , this completely disregarding undoubted similair increases in solid fuel use ( Garnaut's calculations indicate that amounts to about 3 times liquid fuel use )
"Some very dodgy science"
RE: Some very dodgy science
bugalugs you genius
Australia is the only place in the southern hemisphere?
And liquid fuel is the only source of CO2
Who's dodgy here?