the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Green Reveiwed Litrachur

Posted by Jeff Id on January 30, 2010

This was sent by email to me from Climatequotes, apparently greenpeace has been a regular in IPCC reports for some time.


From Climatequotes:

After hearing about Greenpeace being cited in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment report, I went back and looked at the Third Assessment Report to see if they had been cited there are well. Turns out they were, at least four times. Three of them were from Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, and one was from Working Group III: Mitigation. The first is in working group II: Impact, section 12.1.4. Climate Trends:

“There is some evidence of long-term variations in the Australasian region in storm frequency and tropical cyclones (Nicholls et al., 1996a; Radford et al., 1996; Hopkins and Holland, 1997; Leighton et al., 1997).”

Radford et al is referenced as:

Radford, D., R. Blong, A.M. d’Aubert, I. Kuhnel, and P. Nunn, 1996: Occurence of Tropical Cyclones in the Southwest Pacific Region 1920-1994. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 35 pp.

They misspelled occurrence, not me. I can find this cited all over the Internet, but I cannot find the original. There were citations to support this claim other than Greenpeace. Onto the next, also in Working Group II, section The Arctic:

“Comprehensive interviews by Gibson and Scullinger (1998) have revealed notable impacts on food sources and natural environments of native Alaskan communities.”

Read the rest here.

10 Responses to “Green Reveiwed Litrachur”

  1. The force of the author’s denial, here: “They misspelled occurrence, not me.” is diminished by
    his/her own errors. The word “occurrence,” treated as a word, needs quotation marks. And, it should read ” …, not I.”

    A little “[sic]” would have sufficed.

  2. Ian said

    ” …, not I.”
    …which has been debunked, along with the other Latin-based “grammatical rules” of English such as never splitting infinitives. Address all further correspondence to: Pedantry Corner, Private Eye, etc., etc.

  3. Wansbeck said

    #1, I must object to your appalling colon abuse.

    A ‘[sic]’ bucket seems more appropriate.

  4. Jeff Id said

    I’m surprised that English masters can survive the horrors of punctuation and spelling at the Air Vent.

  5. AndyL said

    It’s not a latin based rule.

    The easiest way to see whether to use ‘me’ or ‘I’ is to simplify the sentence as if you were the only person involved.
    So: “He gave it to John and me” – because “he gave it to me” is correct
    “John and I went swimming” – because “I went swimming” is correct
    “He misspelled it, not I” – because “me misspelled it” is obviously incorrect

  6. boballab said

    Jeff it gets better then that though. Forget Greenpeace and the WWF, lets use a master’s level dissertation and an article in a climbers magazine as proof that AGW is melting the ice int he Andes, Alps and in Africa:

  7. PhilJourdan said

    boballab said
    January 30, 2010 at 7:44 pm
    Jeff it gets better then that though.

    Like I said, a scandal a day. You dont destroy a bastille with one blow, but by a brick at a time.

  8. Ian said


    Look up “methinks” in the Oxford English Dictionary.

  9. […] The Greenpeace fraud about saving the whales must be exposed. “They are selling the illusion of making a difference to a gullible public”. Greenpeace NGO in bed with business, Greenpeace and the UNIPCC reports, […]

  10. ClimateQuoter said

    Now even more dodgy citations. The WWF was cited with the CRU in AR3 multiple times:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: