Son of Climategate #7: Well, That Didn't Take Long
Donna LaFramboise, the Canadian proprietor of the "no consensus" blog has tracked down 16 other World Wildlife Fund assertions in the IPCC reports that are supposed to be solely based on peer-reviewed science. She has also found Greenpeace assertions listed as peer-reviewed science. The lists are here. Hat tip: Watts Up With That.
Whatever one thinks of the WWF and Greenpeace, they are hardly disinterested science. WWF and Greenpeace are political advocacy groups and their pamphlets are hardly "peer reviewed."
My sense is that this is pretty much the end of the IPCC's pretensions. There are enough people on top of this now that, even with the American media's self-imposed blackout and the excuses they are making for the IPCC, that Congress will not move forward with cap and trade. It will also be interesting to see if the Congressional attempt to repeal the EPA's regulation of CO2 gains traction.
UPDATE: Apparently, I am not the only person questioning the EPA's CO2 ruling in view of these revelations regarding the IPCC's non-peer-reviewed science. Article here.
Note: I corrected the numbering on the posts.
Whatever one thinks of the WWF and Greenpeace, they are hardly disinterested science. WWF and Greenpeace are political advocacy groups and their pamphlets are hardly "peer reviewed."
My sense is that this is pretty much the end of the IPCC's pretensions. There are enough people on top of this now that, even with the American media's self-imposed blackout and the excuses they are making for the IPCC, that Congress will not move forward with cap and trade. It will also be interesting to see if the Congressional attempt to repeal the EPA's regulation of CO2 gains traction.
UPDATE: Apparently, I am not the only person questioning the EPA's CO2 ruling in view of these revelations regarding the IPCC's non-peer-reviewed science. Article here.
Note: I corrected the numbering on the posts.
Comments
Post a Comment