A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC

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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Al Gored

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.

Rob R

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.

John Tofflemire

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

“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.

charles nelson

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%…

Patrick Hignett

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)

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

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

Alan the Brit

“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!

Les Johnson

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.
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).
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!

Keith Battye

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.
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.

Philadelphia freedom

Greenpeace have posted Sven Leske’s CV here:
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!

Alexander K

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”.
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.”


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.

Jack Simmons

Is there anything in the UN not corrupt?
Just wondering.

Hear, hear!
(but not “Here, here!” as John Tofflemire said earlier…)

Joe Horner

So our politicians have been told by a Gold Standard scientific review that it’s feasible to convert nearly 80% of our energy supply to renewables in a certain (short) time frame and, at least in the UK, seem to be running with that idea. Only, the Gold Standard scientific review was produced by Greenpeace.
That’s actually quite frightening.

Pete in Cumbria UK

From reading other ‘grapevines’, it seems that the UK’s renewable energy plans have problems already.
It involves the so-called Renewable Heat Initiative = the tax man is going to pay people to heat their houses using either solar thermal, heat-pumps or bio-mass boilers.
The first two are doomed because..
1. Only 15% of the UK’s solar energy arrives during the 5 months of winter, when its needed most.
2. the national grid is overloaded already on cold winter days before adding 10’s of GW of extra demand
3. In SW Scotland, right now, folks are offering money to do tree surgery. That’s right, paying you money to chop trees when before you paid them
IOW, the RHI scheme has not even officially started yet and we’ve run out of biomass to feed it. 12 months ago, wood pellets were costing 50% more (in energy terms of pence per kilowatt hour) than electricity did and that was before you’d spent thousands on a suitable (approved) boiler.
There just aren’t the words sometimes, sigh.


The evidence that Pachauri is in fact a mole inserted into the IPCC by Lord Monckton in
order to destroy its (the IPCCs) credibility is starting to get overwhelming.

Johnny Honda

For sure we can supply 80% of the energy needs by renewables!
Let’s just go back to the bronze age. At this time humanity lived 100% by renewables…
Or let’s commit mass suicide, with 10% left of the current population “we” (or the ones left) can live with 80% renewables.


The only thing the UN will take notice of, is a move to defund it, or at least the IPCC – An opportunity here for a new squeaky clean clean out before the pimple bursts into an ugly mess, though can’t get much worse or more ugly than this mess is right now…IMHO!

Brian Johnson uk

Scrap the UN. What good has it actually done since its inception? Without it we would have had wars so no difference there then. Malaria would be almost non existent, food would be more plentiful, fewer wind farms/solar/biofuel systems and we would be avoiding any AGW/Climate Indulgences because people like Pachauri would be oiling railway engines or trying to get their porno books published [and hopefully failing miserably] and the likes of Hansen, Mann, Jones on the dole queue……..

John Marshall

If you include fossil fuels as renewable, which they are over the tens of million year timescale, then they are correct. We can get over 80% of our energy from renewables, including FF’s.
Apart from this what planet does Pachauri inhabit? Not Earth!

John Q. Galt

Has much coverage of Donna Laframboise’s work at nofrakkingconcensus on this social network effect been discussed at WUWT? Her site is a great read and rings so true. I see these same problems with the critics of biofuels and industrial agriculture. Grey literature, sloganeering, fake experts, hiding the decline, cherry-picking data, insider clubs all show up in the anti-agriculture Green color revolution-types at CARB and the psuedo-agriculture schools like Cornell.

RR Kampen



Bulls-eye, Tallbloke:
‘“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.’
Hoisted by their own petard — in slo-mo…..

How much direct evidence will it take for our political leaders to notice the stink of the global warming deceit? Or have they noticed it but find it difficult to extract themselves? We should remind them of the best political inducement of all for changing their opinion: they will not be re-elected unless they extract themselves, for it’s our money they commit on the basis of these extraordinary, fraudulent, self-seeking, public dissimulations. As Mark Lynas indicates, no oil company could have got away with this level of blatant conflict of interest even for a day.

Big Green makes Big Oil look as inoffensive as a kitten.

A couple of comments that may particulalry interest WUWT from Mark Lynas’ blog. He hasn’t read a copy of the Hockey Stick Illusion, Yet!
But Professor Jonathon Jones is going to lend him his copy… (Jonathon in these links)
Mark Lynas says:
15 June 2011 at 2:11 pm
Thanks Andy – I guess what we can all share is an interest in the scientific method being applied as rigorously as possible. And some ‘sceptics’ are doing great work in holding the IPCC and others to higher standards. Here’s another sceptic site, for instance, raising some equally valid issues:
■ Barry Woods says:
15 June 2011 at 2:35 pm
Donna has done a lot of good work, you are aware that many of the usual suspects consider her a ‘climate change denier’ and smear her at every opportunity?
■ Mark Lynas says:
15 June 2011 at 2:37 pm
No, I didn’t know that. Skimming through her site it looks very much like fair comment to me. I haven’t come across it before. But she’s unfortunately right that too many Greenpeace people wear the ‘scientist’ hat when it suits them.
■ Barry Woods says:
15 June 2011 at 2:51 pm
No offense, IF donna is new to you, may be you should step outside of the green bubble a bit more….. Take some time to read her blog, and Bishop Hill
May I ask
Have you read ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’
Professor Judith Curry (climate heretic now) challenged some other climate scientists to read this book (Gavin of Realclimate, etc) their reasons and excuses not to read a book recommended by a fellow profesional were both amusing and profoundly depressing. She said that it seemed fair comment and at the very least explained where sceptics like Steve Mcintyre were coming from. They would not read it… if interested I find the link..
PLEASE tell me you are aware of Judith’s blog Climate Etc, if not you must consider yourself part of the green bubble.. go there read her views.
■ Mark Lynas says:
15 June 2011 at 2:53 pm
I haven’t read the Hockey Stick Illusion, but I will if you send me a free copy! ◦
Same with Judith Curry – I have seen her being vilified, but I haven’t gone deeply into it.
■ Jonathan Jones says:
15 June 2011 at 3:12 pm
Mark, where would you like your free copy of the Hockey Stick Illusion sent to? I work near OUCE so could easily leave you a copy there.
Be nice and polite to Mark he appears genuine and has never deleted or blocked any comments of mine on his blog. I have been reading and commenting there since he started it.
He is also the Maldives Climate Change Advisor, and on the board of The Campaign Against Climate Chanhe, which has sceptic alerts and even a Deniers – Hall of Shame. I would hope to persuade him rationally and POLITELT that this is not really condusive to a debate. BE NICE, don’t live up to any pre-conceptions of nasty sceptics.


The problem is NOT the IPCC, this “organization” is doing precisely what the real problem wants them to do. For more on the real problem, click the internet link of none other than one each UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon –

Mick J

One place that cannot be counted on to fix it is UNEP
UNEP, a $450 million U.N. organization, is also an administrative mess, which ignores its own financial rules, and sometimes doesn’t even reveal who is authorized to sign its checks, the study says.
UNEP apparently agrees. It has accepted all 17 recommendations contained in the internal study, and is currently attempting to enact them.
According to the study, that process is supposed to be completed by the end of this month.
In response to questions from Fox News, a UNEP spokesman declared that “The recommendations of the auditors are now being implemented by UNEP under a practical and agreed time-scale and via a Task Force and, as is standard practice, we report back to the [U.N. auditors] every six months”.
There are quite a few important things to fix. Among other failings, the study says that UNEP:
— doesn’t adequately check out the credentials of its partners, especially in the private sector;
— doesn’t even keep adequate records of who it is partnering with, or how well they do at the projects they promise to accomplish;
–has failed to keep track of millions of dollars raised by some partners, and passed on by UNEP to others outside the normal U.N. financial accounting system;
–frequently fails to include “essential” information on financial documents;
–lets officials who don’t have the proper authorization sign off on payouts;
–and has sometimes used high-minded partnership arrangements to cover purely commercial ventures.
Moreover, the global organization has sometimes failed to enforce its own rules for staff disclosure, leading to cases of apparent conflict of interest and potential self-dealing. And sometimes, UNEP departed from its normal legal paperwork entirely, as in the case of a licensing deal with the Thomson Reuters Foundation to use UNEP-generated news stories on a humanitarian website, AlertNet, apparently without going through proper channels.
The 25-page report by the U.N.’s internal watchdog Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was published on Dec. 30 last year under the dry title “UNEP Project Delivery by Partnerships.””


My self and a colleague tackled this very question of the economics and practicality of switching to renewables in this article, in which we also asked what temperature reduction coulfd be achieved through a severe carbon diet.
As a follow up I asked a dozen of the worlds leading climate scientists for their confirmation that collectively our impact on reducing temperature would be very small. It is apparent that most have never done the calculations, and those few that had didn’t like the answer. When actually set beside those few indvidual countries willing to bankrupt themselves to achieve a significant reduction in carbon emissions the temperature reduction achieved was absurdly trivial. In the UK”s case it is 30 thousands of a degree after spending £30 billion a year for forty years.

Mark Lynas responds to me in his comments and says:
“I did side with Mike Mann on the Hockey Stick thing, without personally having the expertise to really go in and check the argument about statistical methodology.
But I have to admit that McIntyre is right about this, and that I and others should have spotted the problem earlier.
There should be no campaigners or anyone else with a vested interest on the ‘lead author’ team for any IPCC publication – ever.”
Interesting times ahead…
I hope his fellow greens are not too nasty to him..
Senior environmentalists were calling Mark Lynas (and George Monbiot) Chernobyl Death Deniers recently… for being pro-nuclear BECAUSE of the Japanes tsunami and reactor problems….
As Mark Lynas writes here:
“Yesterday I was an environmentalist. Today, according to tweets from prominent greens, and an op-ed response piece in the Guardian, I’m a “Chernobyl death denier”. My crime has been to stick to the peer-reviewed consensus scientific reports on the health impacts of the Chernobyl disaster, rather than – as is apparently necessary to remain politically correct as a ‘green’ – cleaving instead to self-published reports from pseudo scientists who have spent a lifetime hyping the purported dangers of radiation…….. ”
Unfortuanetly Mark carries on to speak about Climate Change deniers, (do read the comments in that article) but in his latest article he happily recommended Donna Lafranboise, considered by many to be a Climate Change denier. He thought her words were fair comment, and that she was a new sceptical site to him..
Lost in the green media/NGO/political social netowrk is my explanation for Mark’s thinking….(narrow)

Sven Teske’s affiliation is not exactly hidden. Steve should’ve used Google, as it seems to produce lots of results that show the link. The blunder is that a leading expert says something about his expertise AND mentions his affiliation on an original report. Now, I have a lot of time for Steve, I think he is a great statistician, BUT I found out through extensive investigation that he used to be a mining consultant. Don’t fossil fuel companies use mining consultants a lot? Now, I’m not trying to say anything, BUT…
OK, but seriously, the best experts should be used by IPCC, but any conflict of interests should be investigated openly.
By the way, as for MY affiliation, so you don’t think I’m an anonymous troll…


Heads should also roll over at the Nobel Peace Prize committee.


Rudolf Vyborny said: “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.”
Actually, the UN itself is the culprit for creating the no-oversight IPCC in the first place. But what can we expect from an organization filled with small-country functionaries whose job is no more than a political plum bestowed by a corrupt government?

What Sven Teske wrote in the Greenpeace report cited in AR4 (Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam) is just plain daft:
“Solar power is a prime choice in developing an affordable and feasible global power source that can substitute fossil fuels in all the world’s climate zones…PV solar electricity can provide decentralised energy supply at the very place it is consumed.”
Bear in mind that this was a report jointly written by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association to promote their members’ interests. But it is plain wrong. There are many climate zones for which PV is neither affordable nor feasible, and which it is no proper substitute for electricity generation. Even the report itself has a coloured figure, fig 4.4, showing the electricity generation cost of PV in northern Europe to be in the range 30 cents/kWh, with some parts of Europe being around 40 cents/kWh. And that’s just generation cost: add in amortization of investment, distribution and profit and we’re talking 7 -10 times the cost of electricity from nuclear and fossil fuel plants.
Well, there are some hundreds of millions of people living in northern Europe, and don’t they live in one of ‘all the world’s climate zones’ ? And, there are tens of millions of people in Europe that don’t see the sun for weeks on end in winter, or at best for a few only a few hours a day, and then weakly. So PV isn’t going to be able to provide ‘decentralised energy supply at the very place it is consumed’ in northern Europe. Perhaps Greenpeace think we should close down all industry in northern Europe, and exterminate ourselves so that we don’t need lighting, heating or transportation.
If Teske had written “Solar power is a power source that can operate in all the world’s climate zones”, we would say, yes, technically, but by no means practically or economically. But to write that “Solar power is a prime choice in developing an affordable and feasible global power source that can substitute fossil fuels in all the world’s climate zones” is nothing but an atrocious lie. This shows that the document cited in AR4, which is self-serving for an industry body and an ‘environmentalist’ group, and for Teske as board member of a ‘renewables’ power generation company turning over tens of millions of dollars, is nothing but crude advocacy, ‘spin’ and propaganda. It is shameful that the IPCC are quoting such a biased report, and that Teske, the Greenpeace activist and employee, was appointed an IPCC Lead Author.


I thought it was common knowledge that IPCC (wrongfully) validates Greenpeace. Nice to know there’s an unavoidable proof of it now.

RR Kampen