Met een flits drong het tot me door dat een kreet als “groen is poen” of “greenwash” veel te lief is voor de organisatie die niet schroomt onze brede welvaart te willen verkwanselen voor eigen moreel én financieel gewin: Greenpeace. Ik kan die naam niet meer zonder wrange smaak neerpennen – Al Qaida klinkt nog vrolijker – nu Climategate 2.0 zich aan ons heeft geopenbaard: het IPCC heeft dit rapport gelanceerd waarin Greenpace campaigner én IPCC lead author Sven Teske officieel maakt dat we in 2050 op 80% renewables kunnen draaien als de miljarden maar naar hem en zijn trawanten blijven stromen.

Rypke heeft het enkele dagen geleden al met ons gedeeld. Nog scherpere analyses zijn er van Lorne Gunter in The National Post. Vernietigend is de weergave van Six Degrees alarmist Mark Lynas.  Dan hebben we Oliver Wright in The Independent. En tenslotte het schokkende verhaal Ideological Money Laundering op Bishop Hill. Hieronder de zeer verontrustende passages die WUWT uit dit artikel heeft geknipt:

The advice it produces will further the agendas of those policy-makers. The suggestion here is not that money has changed hands — Greenpeace doesn’t need the money; what it gets for the favours it does the establishment is influence. The service it provides is to give government-funded, agenda-ridden ‘research’ the superficial appearance of independence and legitimacy: ideological money-laundering. It makes clean the millions of Euros of public money given to the renewable energy sector for its PR.

It is no surprise that the EU and governments, spurious quasi-autonomous organisations and NGOs are in cahoots. It has long been known that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favour of the policies that the EU wants. And it is no surprise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. We all knew this much.

What is surprising is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise. We all knew that ‘grey literature’ — non-scientific and non-peer reviewed ‘research’ — found its way into IPCC reports. What surprises is the extent to which ‘grey organisations’ — para-govermental institutions with public functions, but little or no democratic accountability or transparency — are involved in the production of policy and evidence-making, benefitting a narrow industrial sector and serving a particular political agenda.

En dan deze quote uit de analyse van Steve McIntyre die alles aan het rollen bracht:

It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.

Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

En hier dan de schandalige bekendmaking van het IPCC in video:

Statement of Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, at the 11th session of the IPCC Working Group III, May 2011, Abu Dhabi

Print Friendly, PDF & Email