By Andrew Bolt
The IPCC lifted its false claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 almost word for word from a WWF report. Why would a scientific body have accepted, without checking, the claims of a deep green group that depends on green scares for donations?
In fact, Donna Lamframbois shows that the IPCC cited WWF propaganda an astonishing number of times in producing its Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report:
For example, a WWF report is cited twice on this page as the only supporting proof of IPCC statements about coastal developments in Latin America. A WWF report is referenced twice by the IPCC’s Working Group II in it concluding statements. There, the IPCC depends on the WWF to define what the global average per capita “ecological footprint” is compared to the ecological footprint of central and Eastern Europe.
Elsewhere, when discussing ”mudflows and avalanches” linked to melting glaciers, the oh-so-scientifically-circumspect IPCC relies on two sources to make its point – an apparently still unpublished paper delivered to a conference five years earlier (Bhadra, 2002) and a WWF document…
When the IPCC advises world leaders that “climate change is very likely to produce significant impacts on selected marine fish and shellfish (Baker, 2005)” it doesn’t call attention to the fact that the sole authority on which this statement rests is a WWF workshop project report…
The IPCC turns out to be one more institution captured by activists – a danger a House of Lords committee investigating the economics of climate change tried to warn about more than four years ago when it critiqued the politicisation of the IPCC processes:
Indeed, it strikes us as opening the way for climate science and economics to be determined, at least in part, by political requirements rather than by the evidence. Sound science cannot emerge from an unsound process… We are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists whose credentials should rest solely with their scientific qualifications for the tasks involved… Similarly, scientists should be appointed because of their scientific credentials, and not because they take one or other view in the climate debate… At the moment, it seems to us that the emissions scenarios are influenced by political considerations …
Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog
Posted in Blundering Bureaucrats, Climate Alarmists, Climate Change, Environment, Environmental activists, Fanatics, Fear-mongering, Fraud/Waste, Global Warming, Great Britain, India, Liberals, Lily-Livered Liberals, Limp-Wrist Liberals, Politics, Power Hungry, Propaganda, U.K. Tagged: Andrew Bolt, Climate Change Fraud, Climate Change Religion, Climategate, Global Warming Alarmists, Global Warming Hype, Himalayan Glaciers, Tony, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 
