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.
I had been in the archives of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago when I discovered closely guarded original specimens of a number of species. It turns out that Steve Milloy had filed some specimens and that the IPCC, although not the orgiinal holotype, is an early paratype of that species commonly referrerd to as junkscience. It enjoys a parasitic relationship with homo sapiens exploiting their fear-based beliefs that are their waste by-products, is extremely hard to control, and impossible to eradicate.
A close examination from that time makes the initial junkscience identification crystal clear. These new revelations constitute the occasional reconfirmation of the painfully obvous.
Corrupt! There’s no other word for it! It’s time to stop asking for the IPCC to change – because we’ve already had that demand and there’s been not a jot of change. No it’s time to force change from outside by running a proper investigation.
But, who would do it? Under what legal powers would they force those involved to co-operate? Can the police investigate?
An utter complete mess …. and I bet that is why they just put two fingers up to the likes of us, because I doubt there’s anything anyone can do except stop the money and kick them off their soil.
The UN/IPCC hits rock bottom.
Hmm. After the glacier typo (it was supposed to be 2350) excitement, Donna Laframboise et al had a field day finding other WWF crap in AR4. The Greenpeace link is also prominent and covered in various of her posts in a big report in http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
On Greenpeace and Teske, http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/01/28/greenpeace-and-the-nobel-winning-climate-report/ says in part:
I guess color me as not surprised about Steve’s news, if I dug deeper, I might find another reference before Steve’s. Ya know, faced with a big pile of manure, it’s tough to find a special turd.
I totally agree with the stance that if this had been BP for instance there would have been blood on the carpet. If our politicians in the UK do not follow this up they are as dumb as we think they are.
The bandwaggon for Wind farms etc is still rolling fast in the UK and funding is still flowing. Times are hard, tighten your belts, we will look after your cash, this is the message from our UK Govt. whilst monay slides out of the back door to fund bad science.
In light of this latest scandal, I’m very happy that the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to defund the U.S. portion of the IPCC budget…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/19/house-votes-to-defund-ipcc/
I’m sure that Greenpeace can make up the shortfall…
In the long haul, coal, oil, gas, etc are all renewable too…………
In view of the August 2010 WUWT post: “IAC slams IPCC process, suggests removal of top officials” one can only conclude that they haven’t learned a thing, they do not care, continue their power play and get away with it. It is not about gathering knowledge but about making their (political) point.
This scenario analysis by itself is just more polemic crap: if we go back to stone-age wealth and decimate the population we can do without any new renewables and solar electrical power. It is straightforward criminal to put forward such bold statements as if it were meaningfull knowledge and the culprits should finally be brought to justice for corruption and fraud.
Elizabeth says: June 16, 2011 at 5:28 am
“I have a feeling that many of the hard-core warmists are just beginning to have doubts.”
It’s not just the hard-core warmists. I’m beginning to doubt.
I used to think it was: “people who probably had the best of intentions, but made a mistake”.
I’m beginning to wonder SERIOUSLY!!! whether we are really up against criminals who rely on the sceptics being a bit namby pamby and treating corruption as “human error” rather than deliberate intentional malice to defraud the public.
Huge money, gullible people, a closed, controlled group easy to manipulate. What crime syndicate would not want to control the means to create a massive money making scam like this? You only have to think of the billions on carbon trading and the dirty deals that go on in the normal city trading to realise that there is already crime just waiting for an opportunity like the IPCC.
The comments to the-
“A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world’s energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here’s how
By Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi ”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&page=2”
are an interesting read.
‘they’ve hit rock bottom’ – I wouldn’t put money on it.
I believe it is time to give up on thinking the processes for the IPCC will change. It won’t. They’ve been caught in so many misdeeds, that I can’t keep track of them all. The only recourse is to relegate the entire organization to the trash heap of history. And if it won’t go away, we simply need to ignore it. Show were their statements aren’t valid and insist upon another source of information. In other words, treat the IPCC as nothing more than a “National Enquirer” of climatology. Their statements aren’t valid, their process isn’t valid, and their science isn’t valid. That’s the message everyone should use when discussing the IPCC.
What’s new?
We already know the IPCC is corrupt & run by indviduals with huge conflicts of interest, who is really suprised that those individuals then get others with similar conflicts of interest writing & reviewing the made-up-science reports?
We know they don’t care anymore about the science, it is more a task of marketing!
They wouldn’t know a sunspot or solar flare if it burnt their @rse off…
Naturally none of this will make the lamestream media. They’ll go on promoting the whole sham. Only when economies crash and burn due to the stupidity of climate laws passed by ideologically driven leftists will the truth be told by them.
The global warming/climate change movement doesn’t give a damn about the truth. It’s a political movement designed to impose their will on everyone else. We are in a fight for our freedom, if we lose our civilization will be destroyed.
>>Is there anything in the UN not corrupt?<<
I'm afraid the answer is no. Everything the UN does is anymore is tainted.
The Straight Dope provides a sober and realistic overview of the energy needs in 2050:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-ditch-nukes-em-and-em-coal
Cecil’s conclusion: “If we squeeze out every available watt of alternative energy on the planet, and build nukes at an impossibly aggressive rate, we’ll barely keep up with the energy needed to support even a modest standard of living for the world’s people. [by 2050]”.
I am reading way too many “complaints” about corruption. It has taken a long time for someone to write the truth, but wws does at 5:25 am:
“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…. If you doubt that, name the last time the UN did something worthwhile.
Pull out – cut the funding – tear down the building”.
This should be one of the “planks” of the Teaparty reform movement in the U.S. that includes Conservatives, Independents, Libertarians, and former Democrats (if one of those groups does not try to take it over, e.g.,, make if only a “Conservative” movement). At the core is responsible free enterprise. We know that corporate biggies want monopoly and power just like union, academic, financial, bureaucratic, NGO, etc. biggies do. That battle was fought at the beginning of the 20th C, We are in a second titanic battle against those (crony corporations and all the above) who want to use government privilege to line their pockets. Unfortunately, they produce no wealth along the way; only bringing slow destruction of already-created wealth. The core purpose of the Teaparty Movement is to restore free enterprise, which requires the rule of law, the scientific method, limited government, fiscal prudence, transparency, and accountability. Any organizations that do not fit should be abandoned.
The UN — every unaccountable bureaucracy connected to it, e.g., the IPCC — is an easy first targetl; it gets a fail on every measure. Defund. Defund. Defund. Let those economic centers that were using it, and the CO2 fraud, to line their pockets pay for their own corrupt organization and house it. UN out of the US.
Excellent news! The IPPC was formed at a time when AGW might have been a problem. Now it’s shown us it isn’t so they can pack up: job done. A triumph of models proving that things aren’t as bad as they thought they might be. The null hypothesis is preferred. Oh, and shown that science driven by an agenda is self-serving.
That WAS the point wasn’t it?
Joe Horner says:
June 16, 2011 at 2:20 am
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
Iron pyrite, Joe, it has become the “fools Gold” Standard.
The unfortunate part is, as Richard S. Courtney suggests, many excellent scientists worked on portions of the IPCC and they are now unfairly subject to “guilt by association.”
“authoritative and trustworthy IPCC.”
Which IPCC are they talking about? International Pancake Condiment Company?
A clueless bureaucracy, driven by people with a destructive agenda are taking over.
As just another example, Europe’s energy commissioner has announced today how he plans to force a 20% reduction of energy consumption by 2010. Threads, pressure, penalties. And mandatory investments into energy-efficient buildings. Completely prevent exchange of air between in and out. Means to hide the walls behing styropor … and wait for the mold to come. Or to install a costly exchange system.
However, if consumption can be reduced further to 50% by 2050, it’s possible to reach the 80% renewables.
Simply de-industrialize Europe and buy from China.
This is just a terrible surprise! That a UN organization could be so corrupt! I’m stunned!
…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…
Of course it could if we are content to live the lifestyle of the 1.8 billion people on the planet that do not have electricity. Of course it would mean an end to all the major cities on earth and a return to the land for the survivors, similar to what happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot.
Like the IPCC and Greenpeace, Pol Pot was absolutely convinced that what he was doing was right, that it was for the good of the people. This made him supremely dangerous because he never stopped to question his beliefs. He knew that right was on his side, and if you had to break a few eggs to make an omelet, so be it.
Throughout history we see this pattern repeated time and time again, with large numbers of deaths of innocent people the end product. When someone in a position of power believes something that is not true, and then acts on this belief, man made disaster is the result.
The BP Gulf oil disaster spilled crude that was cleaned up by BP. When is IPCC going to clean up the stink spilled by the IPCC? Clearly, that gunk has been way more toxic than the oil spill.
Steve, what are you up to? There is something aperpindicular about this “revelation” and its timing. You wouldn’t have a big axe to grind would you? I feel sorry for anyone who gets caught under the wheels of McIntyre’s scrutiny because they will get slowly crushed. However, it is s a crushing that they deserve to get.
So what is up? Is there a UN pow wow up and coming wherein there is an opportunity to put some real scientists in charge of things. The article seems to lead to something….political.
Everyone reads this blog… so whats up?