I've just been reading a blog by Donna Laframboise, where she has found out how much the IPCC has been influenced by The World Wide fund for nature. I quote her here:
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."
The IPCC, on the other hand describes itself as "a scientific body" that provides "the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change" by assessing "the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information." [bold added]
Many people would consider it improper for a science-focused organization to rely on a document created by an oil company, since the oil company can't be counted on to provide the whole story. Surely, therefore, it is equally improper for the IPCC to consider a statement to be true solely because an activist group says it is.
Seems a bit of dodgy dealing here. Could we have another glaciergate in the making?
Read her blog at NOconsensus.org
H/T toBishop Hill