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.
[snip]
….”and now this, they have no place to go, they’ve hit rock bottom”.
What odds are you giving?
Leave ’em there. Best thing that could happen considering. No better group of fools could have been chosen to destroy the IPCC from within.
Welcome to the age of Scenario Science. Forget old fuddy duddy scientific methodology, Scenario Science is much more exciting!
@crosspatch says: June 16, 2011 at 12:57 am
Nuclear! Oh Goodness! Nein Danke! who needs nuclear when we can take the Khlima Rouge’s road back to a simpler, more bucolic, agrarian society?
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-06-06/pedal-powered-farms-and-factories-forgotten-future-stationary-bicycle
Found as “editor’s pick” on an obviously lavishly funded “Zero Carbon Britain” promoting website.
Tell you what, Crosspatch. You take the cat o’ nine tails and I’ll beat the drum. OK? We can switch over after our muesli break.
[snip]
How can these climate charlatans be brought to account in a Court of Law? The IPCC, its assessment reports and summaries for policy makers, its cabal of alarmist scientists… they are party to the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. The governments of the western world will never hold the IPCC to account. Heck… they are up to their necks with the IPCC in this fraud. So, it can only be by way of some sort of major legal action that this anti-carbon juggernaut will ever be stopped dead in its tracks, once and for all. But how?
This is old…. I covered this back in May when it was released. My approach was different, but the results the same. It is not possible for the money to do what they claim. It is truly fantasy.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/05/the-insanity-of-the-ipcc-energy-%E2%80%9Cbible%E2%80%9D/
The IPCC makes things up. This is news to anyone?
The power behind the IPCC knows full well that it’s going to have to break scientific protocol to get it’s pre-determined conclusions thru. So I don’t think it’s a blunder.
I wish Anthony and co would take some time out to immerse themselves in seminal works on money and power such as Bill Still’s ‘The money masters’ and Zarlenga’s ‘The lost science of money’.
Then he’d be more receptive to George Hunt’s 1987 expose that Rothschild and the world banking elite are the crooked power behind the IPCC and all the climate nonsense we have to endure these days
http://euro-med.dk/?p=13656
Otmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair of WG III, says climate policy has nothing to do with the environment and is instead about redistribution of wealth:
See http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html
ScientistForTruth’s gobsmacking observation that the IPCC Lead Author/Greenpeace Report Author Teske also has a senior position with Greenpeace Energy – in the business of selling renewable energy – is the topper of all the toppers. The redistribution is from us to them.
What’s this? Disgraceful! Corrupt! Oh, it’s just the IPCC going about its usual business again. Back to sleep. (More seriously, yes, I’m as sickened as any of us, but totally unsurprised.)
I fully agree with others commenting that the whole UN – and, come to that, all the other international organisations – needs to be made accountable to the world. The difficultiy is, of course, that since no general public was ever onsulted about bringing these organisations into existence, and since no general public ever gets any say in any of the appalling policies they emit, it’s hard to see how we can get any purchase on the problem – the entire degenerate system has been set up so as to be proof against anything external which might influence it. Our politicians may support these organisations, but in the absence of any public participation in any part of the international process, I’d argue that it has no true legitimacy to influence anything. No Carbon Taxation Without Representation!
I used to work as a glaciologist. Not one of my colleagues in glaciology had ever read the IPCC report, if they had they would have spotted the Himalayan glacier mistake straight off. Scientists just do not regard the IPCC. It is seen as outside science.
I complained about his involement at the Campaign Against Climate Change – Halls of Shame…..
Mark Lynas agreed: At Climate Etc)
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/15/an-opening-mind/#comment-76091Mark Lynas | June 16, 2011 at 5:30 am |
“…..Barry, you are right that the ‘Sceptics Hall of Shame’ is itself shameful – I wonder if I can appear on it now whilst still being a board member of the Campaign Against Climate Change (in all honesty I’d forgotten that I was on the board – I never have anything to do with them!). ”
My reply….:
Many Thanks for that statement Mark….
But your mere inactive presence give them credibility, and supports the Hall of Shame.
I have also written (months ago) to the Green Party about Jean Lamberts’s (Green Party MEP) and Caroline Lucas’s (Green MP and Green Party Leader) involvment (VP and on the board) linking to a group that has Halls of Shame and Sceptic Alerts (activists astroturfing, imagine the complaints if the roles were reversed)
Halls of Shame go against ALL Green Party ethics and policies ( a relative is a press officer for the Greens and former editor of Greenworld and a parliamentary candidate, a very nice person that is truly green, this reflects on all the grass root activists who do have the best intentions)
Even if they are not active, (like yourself) their silence and mere presence endorses it.,
Just think of of it this way, any other elected MP’s and MEP’s associated with any type of Halls of Shame….aimed at individuals, not organisations.
I have asked them(Green Party) first to use their influence to change that policy, at the very least because it was VERY counterproductive for them. I suggested that they should step away if they cannot, as it fails green ethics. I did this privately(months ago), they are fully aware. they have not done so.
Have the GREENS learnt nothing, also George Monbiot (Honourary President) how am I supposed to feel about his involvement when he has the MSM at his disposal to call people deniers, and I do not the same means to defend myself
re-structured from scratch? It does not need to exist.
Why is anyone shocked by what the IPCC is? Is it because of their naive ideas of what the UN is?
Pachauri and others at the IPCC are incorrigible liars. They were born to deceive. It is in their blood. Nothing can be done but to follow McIntyre’s advice and fire everyone so that the IPCC can be rebuilt from scratch.
I am eager to hear that a chorus of climate scientists, including Schmidt, Hansen, Solomon, Trenberth, call for the IPCC to be rebuilt from scratch. I am especially eager to hear from Mann, Jones, and crew as they stand up for truth in climate science and “climate science communications.” Before the pro-AGW camp can create good communications with the public they must first remove from their ranks agenda driven liars who have bullhorns.
Anyone fancy buying energy from the outfit who employ Sven Teske?
http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/
Cui bono,IPCC?
The Independent
Unusually, the Indy which is as pro AGW as the Guardian, gives a relatively balanced view and name checks Climate Audit.
And a brilliant and self-exposing quote from John Sauven of Greenpeace UK ” Exxon, Chevron and EDF also contribute to the IPCC. so to paint this expert UN body as a wing of Greenpeace is preposterous”.
That’s the Exxxon, Chevron and EDF that all have a vested interest in tax farming from renewables. The IPCC is supposed to be an independent body and it should have no connections with any vested interests. In fact it should just cease to exist. Of course no danger that Call me Dave (our UK prime minister) will stop the UK economy destroying windfarm juggernaut.
Still, another chink in the armour
Friends:
This information concerning IPCC Working Group 3 (WG3) is not news. I published a paper about it in 2001.
That paper explains and assesses the IPCC SRES “scenarios” as they are described in Chapter 2 of WG3 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (the TAR published in 2001): that chapter describes the origin and nature of the “scenarios”. The following are some of the points reported in my paper:
(ref. Courtney RS, ‘Crystal balls, virtual realities and ‘storylines’ ‘, Energy & Environment (2001) )
TAR WG3 Chapter 2 says a sub-committee of IPCC WG3 produced the scenarios with no input from the climate scientists (IPCC Working Group I) who were invited to comment on the TAR. It says most of the scenario authors involved are “economists” and “futurologists”, and many of those invited to comment on their work were “activists”.
The assertions in that Chapter are so extraordinary that in my Expert Peer Review for the IPCC I recommended;
“TAR WG3 Chapter 2 should not be published”
and I commended that
“the ‘Writing Teams’ of other TAR Chapters should object to publication TAR WG3 Chapter 2. In my opinion, their failure to object could risk damage to their reputations as a result of association with Chapter 2”
because it
“is the most disingenuous and dangerous document it has ever been my misfortune to read.”
But it was published, and the Vice Chairman of IPCC Working Group 2, Martin Manning, then spoke out to make clear that he also disagreed with it.
Richard
Its depressing that it is so blatant – they clearly don’t care if they’re found out – the gravy train will keep rolling,
And the IPCC is a stagger of plundering proportions. Harrumph harrumph.
How long before we all admit openly that the world is *worse* because of the existence of the UN, not better?
Abolish it. Let everyone figure out how to handle things on their own, without this ridiculously corrupt farce of an organization pretending to manage things.
The UN was a mistake, just like the League of Nations before it. If you doubt that, name the last time the UN did something worthwhile.
Pull out – cut the funding – tear down the building.
I have a feeling that many of the hard-core warmists are just beginning to have doubts. We have this larkin et al and for example Eli at Blackboard in what I would call a very “quiet state of commenting”. The only fanatics left within 2 years will be greenpeace hardcore and Joe Romm etc.
I disagree. Proclamations of hitting “rock-bottom” are impossible to make until things begin to improve. Economists were saying last year the economy hit rock-bottom and the recession was over. Well, this year the economy slipped even more and so last year’s proclamation was premature. Getting back to the IPCC, they are organization with no oversight made up people that answer to no one and who stand to gain money and power by their very actions. The IPCC can still get worse. I can picture several things they could do that is much worse. We won’t know the IPCC’s rock-bottom until the organization is overhauled. That ain’t going to happen so long as there is still money to be had for continuing the course.
“Show these bozos the door”
No, eliminate the entire IPCC organization.