5 of 10 lead authors have links to the World Wildlife Fund (WG2-Chapter4).
A few days I ago I wrote about
in the 2007 Nobel-winning climate bible that concludes 20-30% of all the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction due to global warming. I explained that the research paper on which this finding depends has been demolished by experts in that field. According to one of the world’s pre-eminent biologists, the 2004 Thomas study
isn’t just flawed it’s “the worst paper I have ever read
in a major scientific journal.”
So now imagine you are among the 31 individuals assigned to write this chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. You know that the purpose of the IPCC is to “provide rigorous and balanced scientific information” – just like it says
on the website.
Is there any way you can cite the findings of the Thomas paper and yet not tell your readers about the controversy it generated?
Is it honest to neglect to mention that the same journal that published the Thomas paper followed up six months later with not one, not two, but three critiques?
Is it scientific to fail to alert your readers to the fact that another harsh appraisal
of some 6,000 words in length was authored by a scholar at Oxford University?
Do you not have a responsibility to explain, as does
renowned biologist Daniel Botkin, that: “Specialists know that theoretical models…should not be taken literally“?
Can a chapter really be considered an objective overview if it lists 917 documents as references yet neglects these contrary perspectives? Does critique number one appear in the references? Nope. Critique number two? Nyet. Critique number three? Na. The Oxford gent’s paper? Not a chance
Click source to read FULL article from Donna Laframboise