Steve McIntyre has uncovered a blunder on the part of Pachauri and the IPCC that is causing waves of doubt and calls for retooling on both sides of the debate. In a nutshell, the IPCC made yet another inflated claim that:
…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…
Unfortunately, it has been revealed that this claim is similar to the Himalayan glacier melt by 2035 fiasco, with nothing independent to back it up. Worse, it isn’t the opinion of the IPCC per se, but rather that of Greenpeace. It gets worse.
Steve McIntyre discovered the issue and writes this conclusion:
It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.
Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.
Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here.
Elsewhere, the other side of the debate is getting ticked off about this breach of ethics and protocol too. Mark Lynas , author of a popular pro-AGW book, Six Degrees, has written some strong words also: (h/t to Bishop Hill)
New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace
Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined.
…
The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors – and I would have thought that not only should biased ‘grey literature’ be rejected, but campaigners from NGOs should not be allowed to join the lead author group and thereby review their own work. There is even a commercial conflict of interest here given that the renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions. Had it been an oil industry intervention which led the IPCC to a particular conclusion, Greenpeace et al would have course have been screaming blue murder.
And, Bishop Hill reports other rumblings in AGW land with a consensus that the IPCC is “dumb”.
What a mess. The IPCC and Pachauri may as well give it up. After a series of blunders, insults of “voodoo science” to people asking honest, germane, questions, Africagate, and now this, they have no place to go, they’ve hit rock bottom.
The credibility of the IPCC organization is shredded. Show these bozos the door.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A tipping point, one hopes. This Humpty Dumpty seems to be made out of rubber but this ought to demolish the IPCC’s credibility among all but the hardcore True Believers. The Rommspin should be hilarious.
I was initially too gobsmacked to leave a comment over at climate audit. I am no less astounded by the situation 1 day later. What on earth were they thinking in the IPCC? Heads should roll over this.
Hear, hear! Thank you for posting.
IPCC has very little credibility but this scandal is simply corruption. All members of UN should demand dismantling IPCC. Unfortunately this is not likely to happen
I read this earlier in a blog from Australia – http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace-partners-in.html
“The credibility of the IPCC organization is shredded. Show these bozos the door”
I’m afraid that the leaders of the IPCC and their following AGW-believers (including many politicians) are, like all true believers, never of the opinion that this kind of discussions will harm the credibility of the IPCC. Because not ignorance, but preconceived ideas are always the problem in science and politics.
When a brave journalist put up this story on the uk Independent, I wrote a comment praising him and thanking him politely for his work.
This and a dozen more comments in general agreement have been pulled off and a lukewarm batch of agree -ers have taken our places!
It’s quite a serious battle now going on inside the MSM…the new generation senses that the story is turning and want to be in on the action…the oldschool greenies are still in control…but skating on thin ice…if you pardon the pun.
If Pachauri’s past responses to criticism are any measure, we can count on his stodgy grip on the helm for some time to come. Which isn’t to deny that the IPCC’s crediblity is non-existent right now, but that they have become so enamoured of their own efficacy that they don’t notice the obvious. Their raison d’etre is promoting the “theory” of AGW, and that necessarily includes anything that supports their aim. So, when good science can’t foot the bill, any old claptrap’ll do.
Sure, 85% of the world’s energy could be met with renewable sources if you consider nuclear power with recycled fuel as renewable. Or maybe if you shut down every blast furnace on the planet. How many windmills does it take to reliably power an electric arc blast furnace 24 hrs / day?
yes it does get worse every time you look at it…so they had a biased report written by a campaigner together with industry interests, they hired that very same author, they spoke only about that report to all newsmedia and still it wasn’t enough: 77% became 80%…
Call me paranoid but I think
Pachauri chose his words carefully when he says.
“Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.”
1. He refers to energy supply not energy needs.
2.. Note the chilling phrase abput the “right enabling public policies” My reading of this is that given the power we can make you do what we want.
No doubt the 20% of none renewable (and reliable) power would be rerserved for the supporters of the scheme.
How exactly is a corrupt organisation (such as the UN) supposed to police the actions of another corrupt organisation (IPCC) ?
Worse, the corruption at the heart of the IPCC comes from another corrupt organisation (greenpeace)
Long renowned for selling investments in animals to raise funds for plotting the extinction of other animals (Homo Sapiens)
Special interests manipulating the scientific and non-political IPCC process from within to promote their own agendas, likely for their own financial benefit? How astounding, and completely unexpected. Surely this is merely an aberration, that in no way affects the accurate reporting of the overwhelming consensus views of the settled science as presented.
Any additional dissent from those evil fossil fuel industry-funded disseminators of disinformation who want the world to die in flames must be quickly squelched. Otherwise wild conspiracy theories may erupt, perhaps one which notices how a UN report-writing program keeps yielding conclusions that lead to a UN-run program of global control with greatly expanded UN powers.
[reply] remember to add a /sarc tag next time please TB-mod
“Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.”
Not literally, Steve, surely? Having said that there are a few who ought to be as an example, metaphorically speaking that is! Who’s up for Terminator? The whole IPCC should be “terminated” IMHO, along with the UN. How many millions have died or otherwise suffer through UN arrogance & ignorance? They are a disgrace & have been infiltrated & infected by left-wing neo-socialist intellectuals, usually from privilaged middle-class well educated backgrounds, like the rest of the Jonathan Porrits of this world!
I have posted this on other sites, but it fits in well with the conflict of interest in the IPCC.
From Donna Laframboise’s blog, I saw the name Richard Moss, and his affiliation, the WWF.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/the-wwf-vice-president-the-new-ipcc-report/
Richard Moss is on the 15th chapter of the AR5, the section on Adaptation Planning and Implementation.
It’s interesting about his WWF connection, and the name just below his on the AR5, Walter Vergara, with the World Bank.
The WWF, with grant money from the World Bank, have purchased the rights to Amazonian forest, and hope to make 60 billion dollars from carbon credits, through REDD (reducing emissions from developing countries deforestation).
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/amazongate-part-ii-seeing-redd.html
Of course, Chapter 15, that Moss is part of, also deals with REDD.
I really suspect that the theme music to the IPCC is “Dueling Banjos”. And that they feel the hillbillies in “Deliverance” were just misunderstood.
Why would they let someone into the IPCC who is a representative of an organization with vested commercial interest in programs that he is reviewing? These are commercial interests totaling BILLIONS of dollars!
“Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.”
On the contrary, this kind of shark jumping and squirrel fishing from the IPCC is to be encouraged and publicised.
Nothing could make the entire edifice more untenable and more likely to collapse spectacularly.
If they can make up figrues, so can I.
The 2050 year plan:
80% of renewables supplying energy needs.
80% of bureaucrats with holiday houses at selected conference resorts
80% of climate scientists support the 2050 year plan ‘consensus’.
80% of the proles want 80% renewables.
80% of the statements from IPCC independently checked by Greenpeace.
80% Greenpeace objectives taken up by the IPCC.
Where are the proles when you need them?
I’m afraid we just have to expect more of this sort of thing. The IPCC is now the UN’s standard-bearer for implementation of Agenda 21 (and, ultimately, the world government it aspires to) and left-wing groups are well-known entryists, very difficult to oust once embedded in the target organisation.
Hats off to Steve McIntyre and all other sharp-eyed citizen scientists: this is the “price of liberty” indeed!
Just when you thought it couldn’t . . . . etc. etc.
Chaps let’s not overlook the fact that this is a UN report. The UN has become a corrupt thing from top to bottom. Getting a job at the UN is considered a great stroke of good fortune as there is a mountain of other people’s money to mine along with the opportunity for social experimentation and engineering with very little oversight.
This particular expose is nothing unusual really and the meister spinners there will swiftly get busy “contextualizing” this little bit of chicanery.
The world is going cold ( yes I know ) on the idea of global warming and the recent announcement of reduced solar activity will help that along and this denouement will help that . That is why the next battlefronts are already being developed, water and ocean acidification. Something as big and ugly and self sustaining as the UN will not stop it’s relentless struggle to carve out more power and control for itself. Starving the UN of money is the only real way to fight it. GW Bush did well to withhold funding as he did but every contributing nation needs to be pressurized to reduce the taxpayer’s cash it sends there.
We need to make the whole UN a real political issue, not just it’s ridiculous IPCC.
As I commented over at Bishop Hill and Climate Audit yesterday:
Sven Teske is an IPCC Lead Author and longtime Greenpeace activist and employee. He has been with Greenpeace since 1994, and a leading Greenpeace Campaigner in Germany since 1995.
Some conflict of interest! How about vested interest as well? Sven Teske founded Greenpeace Energy and was on the board from its inception in 1999, and is still on the supervisory board. Greenpeace Energy has a vested interest in ‘renewable’ power and turned over 79 million Euros in 2010, supplied 448 million kWh electricity (2010) and currently boasts over 100,000 customers.
But then, this is no surprise when Pachauri is at the helm of the IPCC, because he has similar conflicts of interest and vested interests.
The following non-peer-reviewed report is cited in AR4 WGIII
Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/10/solargen3.pdf
Credit for this (see back page) goes to Sven Teske. Teske also co-authored the Foreword with Dr Winfried Hoffmann, President of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA), which states:
“We have now reached a point where CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions have already induced excessive floods, droughts and intensified hurricanes and typhoons…Fortunately, we have technologies at hand – the portfolio of renewable energies – that could change this downward spiral and lead to a green and sustainable future.”
Oh yeah?
What? An industry body with vested interests in selling photovoltaics and an environmental campaigner with vested interests in photovoltaic power generation producing a non-peer-reviewed document that is cited in AR4?
Can you imagine the hullaballoo that Greenpeace would kick up if this was a report written and sponsored by the coal or oil industries and their advocacy groups?
The hypocrisy of Greenpeace is disgusting.
Greenpeace have posted Sven Leske’s CV here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/finland/Global/finland/p2/other/…/sven-teske-cv.pdf
He received a Diploma in Engineering in Wilhelmshaven (Germany) in 1994. He has no postgraduate training. He lists a bunch of “publications” since that time, but they all appear to be opinion pieces and reports. Nothing that has been peer reviewed in a scientific journal. He is the founder and Director of the Greenpeace Renewable Energy Campaign. This speaks volumes about the calibre and objectivity of IPCC science!
It’s wonderful that two very vocal, prominent and extreme Warmist journalists and enthusiastic advocates for CAGW, Lynas and Hitchens, have had the guts to acknowledge that Greenpeace and the IPCC have been exposed in employing corrupt practices. Considering the number of books, columns, etc that these two have written and published based on their acceptance of the IPCC’s research as gospel, this is a truly remarkable event.. I am not brave enough to hold my breath until the BBC reports this event fully and truthfully, however!
No doubt teh attack-dog for the Grantham Institute, will continue to with his wild allegations of smear and innacuracy.
As they say, bring popcorn and beer!
“charles nelson says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:44 am
When a brave journalist put up this story on the uk Independent, I wrote a comment praising him and thanking him politely for his work.
This and a dozen more comments in general agreement have been pulled off and a lukewarm batch of agree -ers have taken our places!
It’s quite a serious battle now going on inside the MSM…the new generation senses that the story is turning and want to be in on the action…the oldschool greenies are still in control…but skating on thin ice…if you pardon the pun.”
Totally agree Charles.
My take on this exactly – i too have wached as the comments section has been spun and “sanitised”.
R
Matt UK
Also check out this shameless May 9 press release on the “energyblueprint” web site (owned by Greenpeace and EREC), where Sven Teske is quoted as follows:
“Sven Teske, Renewable Energy Director from Greenpeace International, and one of the lead authors of the report said: ‘This is an invitation to governments to initiate a radical overhaul of their policies.'”
Read the whole thing, before it is “disappeared.”
http://www.energyblueprint.info/1327.0.html
As pointed out in the piece, there seems to be a degree of double standards here. How is it possible for an IPCC assessment to be disinterested if it has members from Greenpeace? The equivalent would be a member of the fossil fuel industry whose report rubbishes the entire concept of renewables leading a chapter… highlighting their own work.
That the alternative scenario feels impossible argues that the IPCC has genuine bias and is not interested any more in “the truth”.
They sit in judgement at their own trial.
There is a tension here: either have “experts” who are the main producers of papers in the field writing reports based on their own work – or have people with no obvious axe to grind, but cannot be considered “experts” writing it.