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.
IPCC-Gate anyone?
*sigh*
Corruption of Staggering proportions by the EU
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html
Greenpeacebuck$ is one of the most hypocritical, arrogant outfits ever. This should be spread far and wide.
I’m forwarding this to my favorite congresscritters..
I hope they have to actually sail the Rainbow warrior port to port because of no money for the fuel for the D-sail…
Duckster says:
June 16, 2011 at 7:48 am
“…80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century…”
This scandal is nothing but a distraction from the really big news: We’re there with solar (and other renewables, but solar in particular).
I think this is an excellent idea to aim for 80 percent renewables by 2050, and we should go all out to achieve it. There is almost no downside in us doing so. PV will be the cheapest per watt energy source within the next 6 – 7 years, and will be far more efficient within 1 – 2 decades . The Japanese PM said yesterday that the true cost of nuclear is about 10 times the stated costs (and that doesn’t include compensation payments). Even if you think climate change is not happening, this is beginning to make very strong economic sense. We just need to find better ways to store it and work out baseloads better.
==================================================================
Where do people come up with this stuff? No, .that’s not correct. First of all, and repeat after me, we can’t store AC power. The conversion process (going from DC to AC) sucks up so much energy that its hardly worth it. If one was to find a way to store AC power, then that’s a win.
Secondly, where did you invent PV will be the cheapest per watt in the next 6-7 years? I’d like a source so I can go ridicule them. It is deplorable how some groups of people will intentionally mislead the public, and they need called on it.
Thirdly, while we can use PV without REE, the efficiency drops significantly. To provide energy worldwide, the world will have to either do without other things……. such as cell phones, computers, SMART GRID SOLID STATE METERS and the like or massively increase global mining of such elements. Currently, China is about the only one, and they are decreasing exports of such materials because their needs of REE(see the piss fight they recently had with Japan). How soon do you believe we can change our laws to allow us to re-open our mines to where it is cost effective? What of the rest of the world? How is it that you believe PV will become cheapest (lol compare to hydro) when the essential materials for production of such is in such high demand?
I’m guessing, and this is just a gut feeling, that once industry embraces the technology, people such as our friends from Green Peace, Earth First. Sierra Club and the like will move heaven and earth to prevent it. Just like they’re doing coal and oil today. Turns out, socialists in the tradition of Marx and Lenin don’t like successful industries regardless of the benefits provided to humanity.
Baseloads…… that’s fine. I guess we’re to just say screw the people that live above the 49th parallel during the winter. And, of course that would also apply inversely to the people in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Perhaps we can sell them on some whirlygigs and pinwheels. We should ask the people of N.B. how that’s working out for them. Or not, else we might not be able to sell them any more.
Duckster, PV will be viable…….. one day. To consider it anything more than an augment to our existing power structure within the next 50 years or so is a dangerous pollyanna outlook. I’m still waiting on the environmental impact study on all those cells put out in the desert of Cali.
My point is this, solar energy can and will be a useful augmentation to our various sources of energy. Once we refine the efficiency just a little more, it can start supplementing nat. gas use for peak demand. But, until we find a way to work around the laws of physics with AC power, that’s all its going to be. There has been some significant development towards use of DC power as a replacement of AC, but that too is a pipe-dream for several decades to come because of the existing infrastructure. (We’d have to re-fit the entire world from power source to homes.)
The world has an energy problem. Most of it is self inflicted. The sooner we get to dealing with reality, the soon we can fix the problems.
A blunder would suggest simple incompetence at play. I don’t think I would have been as charitable in my choice of words.
Tony Hansen says:
….”and now this, they have no place to go, they’ve hit rock bottom”.
What odds are you giving?
I want in on that bet – I’m betting we’re not at bottom yet.
Duckster,
The only problem with photo voltaics is that it takes more power to make a solar cell and the frame to hold it, than you can ever get from the cell over it’s usefull lifespan.
From the IPCC conflict of interest policy:
As I said above this is nothing new. The following relates to the reliance on Greepeace reports by the IPCC for its some of its claims.
This is why no one should trust IPCC reports as they are driven by advocacy. Looking for evidence that matches their beliefs.
Why does this Kampen fellow keep posting with only the word snip? very curious 😉
CRS,Dr.P.H. @ur momisugly 9:02
“. . . a typical Oklahoma winter”
This is an example of the faulty thinking behind the sorts of solutions being presented. Oklahoma typically doesn’t have a winter in the same sense as many places. But, yes, these things work some times and some places, or as you say “in geographic areas where they make sense.” Boise, Idaho has used geothermal for years.
What does one do in the old cities of the world with millions of housing units close together and stacked one on top of another and up hillsides such that sunlight hardly ever (or never) reaches any of them? Shall we remove all these folks to the wide open plains of Oklahoma and have your friend build them a new tricked-up free standing house on a quarter-acre lot?
There is the concept of an urban area’s “hardening of arteries.” The term applies to the concrete and steel aspects and to the political and ownership rules — total infrastructure, if you like the term. In cities, this issue comes up after every major earthquake as they try to rebuild. Mid-century is just 39 years off. I’ll wager that major existing cities will look remarkably the same then as now, new ones scarce, and oil/gas/coal our major sources of energy.
Here is an example. In Seattle, the Alaskan Way Viaduct was damaged by the Nisqually Earthquake in 2001. Ten years later it is still standing, still dangerous, and still in need of a solution. They now think they might start a tunnel:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/
The current estimated completion date is 2016 at a cost of $3.1 Billion. If you believe either the time or the cost will hold you haven’t been paying attention to such projects: Boston’s Big “Dug” is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
The IPCC.
Fire. Them. All.
“they have no place to go, they’ve hit rock bottom”
Nonsense, Anthony.
They’ll call in a fleet of backhoes (on our dime, of course) and keep digging.
This may have been said already, but it’s certainly possible that target is hit. Shut down the coal and nuclear plants (except those near the elite’s locations) and have rolling blackouts everywhere else. The total production would be lowered so much, that 80% would be true. It’s kind of like the unemployment figures, where they just poof the number in the workforce down, so the rate is held steady.
Here’s the only “renewable” I know of that has the potential of meeting 80% of the world’s energy supply by mid-century:
http://www.cce-mt.org/Energy%20Alternatives/cold_fusion/cold_fusion.html
To be sure, calling it “renewable” is a misnomer, but since it could provide all the energy we need for the next million years or so without serious side effects is close enough. My concern is that the UN and the IPCC will embrace this technology as the big solution to our energy problems. It just might develop like the attitude of political parties in Greece to this–everybody is on board.
Mark Lynas: The IPCC must urgently review its policies for hiring lead authors….
Huh, the motive behind the ipcc’s actions has always been, in effect, to become a World Government. It’s “stakeholder” position doesn’t have any other “urgency”. Promoting and foisting upon us its Postnormal Science Propaganda Op. has always been its “method”, or at least by the time the TAR was being formulated.
It’s nice that Mark Lynas is calling for the ipcc to urgently do something different, but surely he must explain why he didn’t notice anything amiss prior to writing and selling his book.
CRS, Dr.P.H:
At June 16, 2011 at 7:48 am you respond to the reasonable statement from Duckster at June 16, 2011 at 9:02 am which was:
“Come back on here and tell us when there is one that works. At a cost less than burning dollar bills.”
Your response was to ignore his point about costs and to list:
1. Wastewater biomethanation (already mentioned) –
2. Geothermal –
3. Wastewater ethanol production –
4. Passive solar
I note that you did not put (sarc/) at the end of your response and, therefore, I am treating it as being a serious comment.
So, please tell me
(a) the cost
and
(b) the requirement
for the methods you list to supply the electricity for one, solitary, medium sized, aluminium smelting works.
I assume the answer to my question will be on your office shelf because I note that you say,
“One of my clients produces ethanol from waste cheese whey permeate as a wastewater treatment option.”
And I interpret this as being an inference that you provide “clients” with information on such matters.
Of course, I apologise if you cannot answer my question because my assumption is an error on my part.
Richard
I’d like to make a point to the greenies here who seem upset by some attitudes.
My personal belief is that eventually the biotech guys will crack the fuel nut and we will have renewables, but the present technology is simply not feasable for large scale transportation and industrial use – period. I understand that there are technologies that can achieve significant energy savings for residences and industry, but efficiency is not going to solve the long term problem. I am building a small house for myself at the time that will have ground effect air conditioning, solar hot water, and be as energy efficient as I can afford, so it’s not like I don’t appreciate these things, but you are delusional if you think these things will solve the long term problem.
A couple of weeks ago there was an announcement from out west where some biotechs had genetically engineered a bug to secrete lipids instead of storing them in its body (lab scale at this time). At present the big problem with lipids from algae or almost all biofuel is getting it out of the organism and processing it. These are the kinds of advances that it will take to eventually solve the problem and I personally think it will be solved.
Trying to cram things down people’s throats before the technology is ready does not make anybody any friends. Go save somebody else.
Friends:
Before the salesmen for renewables side-track this thread, I write to quote the conclusion of my paper published a decade ago which I referenced in my above post at June 16, 2011 at 5:20 am
I said in that post:
“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) )”
I now write to quote the concludng paragraphs of that paper. They were:
“The Chapter is honest about one thing, though. It openly admits why it pretends such mumbo-jumbo is science. Its Introduction states that the Chapter considers “societal visions of the future” that “most share a common goal: to explore how to achieve a more desirable future state”. There are many differing opinions on what would be a “a more desirable future state” (c.f. those of Mussolini and Marx) but the Chapter does not overtly state its definition of “desirable”.
And the Chapter concludes: “Perhaps the most powerful conclusion emerging from both the post-SRES analyses and the review of the general futures literature is that it may be possible to very significantly reduce GHG emissions through integration of climate policies with general socio-economic policies, which are not customarily as climate policies at all.”
Simply, this conclusion of Chapter 2 of WG III TAR calls for changes to socio-economic policies that are not climate policies (at very least, this conclusion provides an excuse for such changes). And the Chapter’s Introduction states that these changes are intended to achieve “a more desirable future state” based on “societal visions of the future”.
This conclusion derived by the method that generated it for the purpose stated in the Chapter is an abuse of science. Indeed, it is not science to make predictions of how to change the future by use of selected scenarios when “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”: this is pseudo-science of precisely the same type as astrology.”
Richard
Steve is not an author at the IPCC. If he was then, and only then, might you have a point you have a point. Furthermore, I vaguely recollect that he does not describe himself as a man-made global warming sceptic.
By the way Pachauri who is head of the IPCC set up a residual oil extraction company and to this day is its scientific advisor. What do you think about that?
http://www.glorioil.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=10
80% of the world’s energy supplied by renewables by 2050? I don’t see it happening, but I suppose it would be possible. Ballpark estimate of cost: $100 trillion.
Richard S Courtney says:
June 16, 2011 at 10:44 am
Friends:
Before the salesmen for renewables side-track this thread, I write to quote the conclusion of my paper published a decade ago which I referenced in my above post at June 16, 2011 at 5:20 am
==============================================================
Richard, thanks for that. I wasn’t aware of your paper until I read your comment at CA. By the manner I read your comments, this confirms what we’ve known all along. The purpose isn’t much to do with climate, but more to do with changing the socio-economic structure of the world. Which, of course, parrots the people whose banner includes a hammer and a sickle.
Quick question. I don’t consider the IPCC to have any “authority” (but neither do I think that “authority” matters in science). My question is: what is so horrible about this, exactly? That the guy has a huge conflict of interest? Well that makes him partial as hell, sure, but not necessarily wrong. And I don’t see the IPCC breaking any laws or clear rules of scientific conduct. That I know of.
Would it be better for the IPCC’s credibility if they didn’t have authors with huge conflicts of interest? Sure, but it’s evidence and arguments that matter, not “credibility”.
In effect, I’m asking you to clarify the difference between the uproar over this conflict of interest and the many ad hominems we “deniers” are constantly exposed to.
I’m not saying there isn’t any, I’m just asking you to clarify it for me, because I’m not completely sure what it is 🙂
How can you believe something postulated by someone who stands to gain from what he is pushing? Has he offered others a cash benefit to not criticize what he is saying?
His future income depends on a large number of people buying into what he puts forward .
You think he may be right but if that’s the case why should he not be exposed to criticism and investigation? Why should he be allowed to put his point of view forward unquestioned? You would be better off wondering why he has had to have this unquestioning channel into the minds of a lot of people who will simply accept his story because lots of people are happy to have others do their thinking for them.
This is a scam. It is set up as a scam and it enjoys the collusion of the IPCC people. Don’t be misled by the title of this thread, it is not a blunder it’s a scam.
paul says:
June 16, 2011 at 3:41 am
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…
=======================================================
Paul, first of all, you’re being coy……just come right out and say it!
Secondly……. lmao!!!! Great work seeing that you can get a picture of him during his mining days on his website. I hope your “extensive investigation” didn’t take up too much of your time. This has been known for several years.
Thirdly, you guys need to check reality. Do you honestly think oil companies give a rats azz if we plant whirlygigs in our yards? IDK about the rest of the world, but the U.S. electric generation uses oil in a very miniscule amount.
Additionally, one of the wealth redistribution schemes our socialist friends came up with was to use some strange government backed and approved CO2 market. You should ask yourself why oil companies were all for it. It probably has something to do with cornered markets with no chance of future competition by upstart companies……….laughable.
Lastly, last I remember, Steve Mc’s writings weren’t issued in the IPCC with Steve being the lead author of that chapter……… maybe you can show us how this Green Peace/IPCC (or is that IPCC/GP, or IPCC/IPCC, or GP/GP….it appears they are interchangeable, but most rational people knew that anyway)….fiasco parallels with Steve McIntyre being a mining consultant.
DonS says:
June 16, 2011 at 7:37 am
“Appears there’s a consensus here. What’s the action plan?”
YES! Enough talk about what these corrupt crooks! We’ve got it! We’re convinced!
How do we take them down????????? What legal, political, and economic baseball (or cricket!) bats can we swing, to hit them where it REALLY HURTS?
Let’s see a pilot project first.