Is the IPCC a lobby group with special interests?
It appears that the IPCC has at least 78 scientists who are co-chairs, lead authors, expert reviewers, etc. who have clear documented public ties to the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). Many have multiple positions of authority.
This is only WWF members and doesn't include other obvious environmental lobby groups like Greenpeace. Does this number seem high to you? Can the IPCC really still be called an objective, credible organization?
Do you think anyone would care if there were 78 scientists in IPCC from, for example, The Heartland Institute?
Edit@Gringo: <Please, please, give us the complete list then with names of scientists who DO work for Greenpeace. What are you waiting for?>
I'll start with Sven Teske: "A clean energy campaigner at Greenpeace International, is the lead author of Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution report."
Sorry, don't have time for a complete list. By the way, you should know how Sven is tied into the IPCC, don't you? It's not even clear what his academic credentials are since his bio has been pulled from Greenpeace website.
I suppose if you're a fully paid member of the Church of the Environment, none of this bothers you. You can live like a hobo if want. Just don't force me to.
- GringoLv 610 years agoFavorite Answer
It does? How come you skeptics are hardly ever skeptical of articles against AGW?
<<...that the IPCC has at least 78 scientists who are co-chairs, lead authors, expert reviewers, etc. who have clear documented public ties to the World Wildlife Federation (WWF). Many have multiple positions of authority.>>
No it doesn't. All IPCC 'scientists' are volunteers who do not get paid to do their job. Some of them have later signed up as members of the WWF Science Advisory Panel, again as volunteers. Their role is to "...give their expert opinion on submitted Climate Witness stories". (1)
<<This is only WWF members and doesn't include other obvious environmental lobby groups like Greenpeace.>>
Please, please, give us the complete list then with names of scientists who DO work for Greenpeace. What are you waiting for?
<<Does this number seem high to you?>>
Nope, considering the thousands of people who contributed to the 2007 IPCC report without getting paid for it, including 2,500 scientific expert reviewers (including skeptics), 800 contributing authors (including skeptics) and some 450 lead authors (including skeptics) and that the report itself was then reviewed line-by-line by the representatives of 130 governments(including governments skeptic of AGW like the US) before being approved.
<<Can the IPCC really still be called an objective, credible organization?>>
Yes, as long as one really understands how they work and not suspect some giant global conspiracy to take over the world.
<<Do you think anyone would care if there were 78 scientists in IPCC from, for example, The Heartland Institute?>>
If you find one, one who is not a regular in the media to express his skeptic views but actually agrees with the IPCC findings, please let us know asap.
<<I'll start with Sven Teske: "A clean energy campaigner at Greenpeace International, is the lead author of Greenpeace’s Energy Revolution report.">>
He is. Yet he did not write nor contribute to any of IPCC's periodical assessments on climate change. What he did do was act as one of 9 lead authors, presided over by two Coordination Lead Authors, of Chapter 10 ("Mitigation Potential and Costs") of the IPCC's special report on renewable energies. (2)
<<Sorry, don't have time for a complete list.>>
Can't wait for the rest.
<<By the way, you should know how Sven is tied into the IPCC, don't you?>>
Depends on what you imply by "tied into the IPCC".
<<It's not even clear what his academic credentials are>>
If only you'd be equally demanding when believing AGW deniers with no scientific background whatsoever. Sven Teske is an engineer.
<<since his bio has been pulled from Greenpeace website>>
It has been pulled or it was never there to begin with? You are implying stuff without giving any facts. That's not very scientific.
<<I suppose if you're a fully paid member of the Church of the Environment, none of this bothers you.>>
How come you are not bothered, or so it appears, by the proven amount of financial links between Exxon (to name just one) and a wide range of climate skeptic organizations, think-tanks, websites, fake grass-root organizations and even 'scientists' directly?
As for me, I prefer an engineer working for an NGO who actually has expertise on the issue and is asked to co-author 1 chapter of an IPCC Special Report over any Big Oil/Big Coal funded climate skeptic who gest all the media exposure theyand their sponsors want and makes money of it.
<<You can live like a hobo if want. Just don't force me to.>>
No one needs to live like a hobo, you ignorant fool.Source(s): (1) http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/probl... (2) http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/authors/chapter-10
- spikeychrisLv 410 years ago
Well I don't think having ties to the WWF is a conflict of interests so no I don't think it calls into question the credibility of the organisation.
It is not the same as the hearthland institute where the fact they get a lot of money from oil companies and claim that global warming doesn't exist. Oh and claiming second hand smoke doesn't damage your health. Totally invalidate their credibility.
And 78 scientists out of how many? Plus the IPCC are an international group they are not an American special interest lobby group.
- IanLv 510 years ago
1. It's a UN body so you know it's corrupt from the start. 2. It's mandate was never to be objective since it was to report on man made climate change and how we could mitigate it's effects.
That's like creating a taxpayer funded commitee on ways we could help Santa deliver his toys and calling it objective. You've already formed the opinion that Santa exists and that we should be spending massive amounts of taxpayer money to help him out. If someone came to you with a study that said Santa may not exist you would stop at nothing to quash that paper because it would threaten the very reason of your organization's existence.
- 10 years ago
Well, it wouldn't really suprise me if that was actually true. It is the UN after all and I'd say that organisation is one of the most corrupt out there. Heck, when you have abusers of human rights on human rights councils, you have to wonder if there's any sanity at all.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- d/dx+d/dy+d/dzLv 610 years ago
Strange how people with actual scientific talent find themselves in multiple positions of responsibility. To get that type of responsibility, all that one needs to do is earn a PhD from a reputable university, conduct independent research, and author more than 200 papers in the peer reviewed literature. People with more talent are not evil, they just have more talent. Deal with it.
- Hey DookLv 710 years ago
NO, the IPCC is not "a lobby group with special interests" and this is surely in the upper quartile of your most stupid lies. The IPCC consists of many thousands of scientific contributors; if 78 (a tiny percentage) of them get out of bed in the morning on their hands instead of their feet it does not mean jackshite, except to a BS collector, such as yourself.
- Anonymous10 years ago
I think they were good people with good intentions , but Jimmy Swaggert and Jim Baker were also!!!Source(s): the site highest of all!!!!