Saturday, January 30, 2010

IPCC Report 'Peer-Reviewed' By Chicken Little's Peers

Someone was bound to look more closely at the exalted, important, supposedly-scrupulous "peer reviewers" of the vaunted, sarcosanct, can't-question-'cause-the-science-is-sound IPCC Report which is cited by those who want to believe and want us to believe that we're destroying earth by simply using energy that gives off carbon dioxide, which is, by the way, a natural atmospherica gas without which there could be no life on earth, ie an essential thing.

Well, Donna LaFramboise took a critical look at these famous "peer reviewers" who signed a piece of paper declaring their agreement with the IPCC's sensational, frightening, oppressive position.
(...)many of those people aren't scientists at all. They're professional activists in the employ of environmental organizations. 
The expert reviewers who had input into just one portion (Working Group III) of the IPCC report are listed in this 8-page PDF. They include three Greenpeace employees, two Friends of the Earth representatives, two Climate Action Network reps, and a person each from activist organizations WWF International, Environmental Defense, and the David Suzuki Foundation.
Well, at least they don't work for "Big Oil", as far as we know.  In that case, they'd then have "zero credibility" because they're "not independent, not impartial, not unbiased, and are obviously motivated by career furtherance prospects".  Right?  Hmm...

Just more damning reason for reasonable doubt and to laugh in the faces of those who tell us, breathlessly, that "The End is Nigh.... Repent Now!".  Now we know where all the lunatics went after the asylum was down.

"Peer reviewed" apparently means "reviewed by people who pee".  Big deal.  Everybody and their dog pees.  Everybody is therefore a "peer" to everybody.  That doesn't mean that they're "unscrupulously scientific professional experts who would never just go along with something for just any reason".

Frankly, they sound like a bunch of co-conspirating conspiracy theorists...

ht: SDA,  which directs us also to where Ms. LaFramboise takes a critical look at a document of the WWF (World Wildlife Fund).
At its heart, the Himalayan glacier scandal that has recently shaken the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) involves a document created by the WWF.

The WWF is an activist organization. Much of its funding comes from public donations. The more successful the WWF is at persuading the public that there's a crisis, the more likely people are to give it money. (In North America, WWF stands for World Wildlife Fund. Elsewhere, it stands for World Wide Fund for Nature.)

Many of those associated with the WWF are lovely human beings. But that doesn't change the fact that the WWF is not a neutral, disinterested party. It has an agenda, an ax to grind, a definite point-of-view. Rather than being a scientific organization, it is a political one. In the UK, the media aptly calls the WWF a "pressure-group."
You know, I consider those who believe what the IPCC says to us... to be no better than those who believe that professional wrestling is real.  Admittedly I once believed it was, but now I know better, because it's so blatantly obvious in its fakery that one would have to be insane to believe it's for real!

No wonder most "progressives" believe the Big Climate Change Lies.  They want to believe and don't want to look critically at the claimed "evidence" and real-world evidence and ask why they're so incredibly inconsistent.  Of course, "progressive" is a euphemism for "socialist mental disorder".

2 comments:

Sounder said...

Canada signed up to Copenhagen today. Unbelievable.

Canadian Sentinel said...

Looks like it could be worse, though. The Chicken-Little wingnuts are disappointed, saying that the indicated "target" is "no good".

I suspect that it's really just politics, optics, meaning very little in reality. After all, remember, the Liberals signed Kyoto and did nothing at all.

It's just stupid stuff that politicians play along with, but which ultimately means little or nothing.

No doubt that within the timeframe of the "target", the whole Climate Change nonsense thing will have disappeared from the radar screen for good.