26 January 2010: In our previous (updated) post, we discussed the IPCC's use of "grey literature," the non-peer reviewed literature produced by think tanks, and environmental "conservation" and "advocacy" groups. IPCC Chairman Pachauri has insisted the recent revelations about use of a WWF pamphlet was due to proper procedures not being followed, and indicating that it is, in essence, an isolated case.
It's become clear that Pachauri is either incorrect or has been mislead; the IPCC has used such citations frequently, including in the AR4, or 4th Assessment Report published in 2007.
On the EUReferendum site, the headline is "Not one, but two ... and counting" in reference to an additional use of the very same WWF reference discussed in our prior post about the apparently inaccurate pending demise of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. The first use of the 2005 WWF document ("An overview of glaciers, glacial retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China" [emphasis added]) was in Chapter 10 of the Working Group II report on Asia. Now the very same WWF report is seen referenced in Chapter 8 on Human Health, authored by a different team. And the scope of the WWF report is also, apparently, much greater than its title as the Chapter 8 authors apply its findings to "the Himalayas, Greenland, the European Alps, the Andes, Cordillera and East Africa" as well. That appears to be a substantial increase in scope.
We thank Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise. Her research has identified many instances where WWF reports are the solitary citations for various IPCC claims, including including several which they consider "an agenda for action." Ms Laframbroise has also scratched the surface on citations to Greenpeace reports.
We're certain many people provide donations to the WWF (also known as the World Wide Fund for Nature) intending for good things to be done for nature. But the WWF is, and always has been, an advocacy group (see "How We Do This" at http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/). The IPCC calls itself a "scientific body." Environmental activists and certain politically active individuals often claim that oil companies, for example, cannot be trusted to generate unbiased reports. Why the double standard?