ClimateGate: The IPCC's dodgy dossier gets even dodgier... yet again!

Another day, another discovery of something else that may be dodgy in the IPCC's dodgy dossier on 'man made global warming' and 'climate change' - the dossier that increasingly appears to be nothing more than a pretext for fleecing tax payers in developed nations out of billions upon billions upon trillions, for 'global governance' (read also as 'global government') and for exporting our jobs to cheaper labour markets in developing nations.

Today, James Delingpole looks at the discovery of the ever brilliant EU Referendum blog which asserts that the IPCC "made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF."

For those who are not following the story, the WWF was also noted for it's role in the dodgy claim about Himalayan glaciers - a claim now renounced by the IPCC's controversial head Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, who also heads the now very controversial New Delhi based TERI.

The WWF issued a press release apologising for their paper on the Himalayan glaciers, but in that apology, no reference was made to the IPCC or the role of the IPCC report in dominating the political, social and economic landscape in nations across the globe.

The authors responsible for the now spotlighted Amazon claim are revealed as being a "Policy Analyst" who also works as a "fire management expert for IUCN and WWF International" - so not a climatologist; and "a green activist who writes occasionally for The Guardian and The Independent" - so definitely not a climatologist either.

The WWF has recently been running a series of fundraising adverts in the UK, urging people to give money to the charity based on the heart-rendering claim that polar bears face extinction.

It is, however, a contentious claim as many assert that the polar bear population is actually growing. And this blogger is uncertain how donating money would help polar bears fight 'man made global warming' anyway... especially if their habitat is about to be wiped out as fast as Al Gore et al want to tell us is the case - explain that one to us, please? How would the donations stop ice melting, if that is what it is doing?

Here is the advert concerned:

So, this blogger got curious about polar bears. How many are there again? So we went to Google.

In roughly ten seconds - we found a statement on the website of a different polar bear conservation organisation which even (seemingly) supports the 'climate change' argument and they write:

"At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision."

And whilst completely failing to tell us how many polar bears there are specifically today, the exact same webpage of the exact same organisation states:

"It's important to note that scientists lack historical data on polar bear numbers — they only have rough estimates. What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded."

The WWF is sure to start being on the receiving end of more headlines after the Watts Up With That? blog has identified a total of fourteen papers used in the IPCC's dodgy dossier in which the World Wildlife Fund 'charity' appears to have had a hand in contributing.

A similar list has been compiled and highly critical analysis reached over at NoConsensus.

The World Wildlife Fund is registered as a charity in the UK. The Charity Commission lists a long number of rules about political activities undertaken by charities.

It makes for possibly interesting reading in the context of those polar bears, so people on both sides of the climate debate ought to come clean on how many polar bears there are and prove it. We want to know where they are precisely, too.

If images of cute, cuddly little polar bears must be hawked like enslaved hookers for the purposes of exploitation in the climate debate, we may as well learn about their experience and habitat.

See that? 'Climate debate'..? And our UK politicians tried to brainwash us into believing the science on this one was settled.

Increasingly un-settling and disturbing on a daily basis would be more like it.

And finally, some analysis of related issues from one of UKIP's freedom fighting heroes:

See also: Andrew Neil - The dam is cracking