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.
Al Gored says:
June 16, 2011 at 12:25 am
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.
No, no,no! Not rubber, but silly putty! lol
@ur momisugly Richard S Courtney says:
June 16, 2011 at 10:27 am
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.
REPLY *ahem* At no point did I say that renewables would, within 50 years, replace ALL forms of electrical generation. However, a goal of 40 to 50% renewables is not out of the question.
US energy needs will always require a mix of fossil, future and alternative fuels. For those of you pining for nuclear, fuggetaboutit. The folks who pay for these things (utilities and their investors) are now totally off of that energy source in the USA, no more new BWR will be built. No permanent waste repository (thanks, Sen. Reid), no appetite for new reactor siting by the public, and no interest by the funding community. Sad but true.
Shale natural gas is our best bridge fuel, the country is awash in cheap natural gas. It’s stunning how quickly this is developing. Yeah, fracking hurts the groundwater etc., big deal, there are easy technical fixes for that. FYI, I consult to the natural gas/oil drilling industry on produced water treatment and waste disposal.
Even lousy, intermittent energy sources such as wind power have a place. Their big problem, besides high capital and maintenance costs, remains the “energy storage” puzzle. How do we store excess electricity when it is produced? This impacts solar, wind and other such sources. Molten salt energy storage sounds very feasible to me for these intermittent energy sources.
There are solutions to every problem. Give the USA forty or fifty years, we’ll figure it out. We are the best, without a doubt. I just wish that DOE and other government agencies would get the frack out of the way.
The IPCC isn’t dumb. It’s corrupt.
Syrup of IPeCaC
No.
This is no “blunder.” It is not a “mistake,” “lapse of judgement,” “oversight” or “error.”
They know exactly what they are doing. They have a goal and a plan, and are effectively implementing it.
Billions of our population are more concerned with facebook and the latest app for their i-whatever. They do not care and do not pay attention to matters that require thought, for thought is hard work. They do just enough to earn just enough to get by, betting that our liberal political policies will take care of them in their gray years.
Of the remainder, probably 1 million or less hold the positions, in varying degrees, that mankind is bad, only more government control can effectively solve mankind’s problems, we are destroying the planet, “the people” are too uninformed to be trusted to do what’s necessary (in this they are correct), it’s up to us to “do something,” etc. Their judgement is tainted by their beliefs, so that only outcomes that support their pre-conceived ideas are given credence. All other thoughts are banished from their intellectually lazy minds. Because their beliefs are only reinforced, they are further convinced that they are right, and this evolves into “the end justifies the means” justification. Although not acting under the direction of any one individual or organization, they have through sheer numbers and in a coordinated fashion elevated themselves to positions of influence and power in all areas of national and world governing bodies. The collective has gained control.
Of the leftovers, there are only a few hundred thousand of us who are capable of holding two opposing thoughts in mind, evaluating facts and reaching conclusions. And even though we have evidence on our side, we are in such minority that our voices are drowned out and our position relegated to “noise.”
Only when the collective enacts legislation that directly impacts the daily lives of the population in general will they rise up and re-take control of the legislative bodies.
Hopefully this will happen before policies are in place that are irreversible (it takes time to re-build power plants) and/or threaten the existence of our civilization.
If not, then we are already lost. I weep for my children.
The creation of the IPCC was a blunder of staggering proportions.
They no doubt expected to get away with this – their arrogance and contempt for the rest of us who have to pay their bills is unbounded.
Technically, it says “could,” as in “it could happen.”
Lot’s of things “could” happen, after all, like the star ship Enterprise could land in my backyard tomorrow and take me back to the home planet.
Prove it can’t happen.
“We’re gearing up for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership. I’m talking about the “battle of Kyoto” — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord.
It would take more than one letter to explain what’s wrong with Kyoto, but here are a few facts about this so-called “Accord”:
o It’s based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.
o It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants.
o Canada is the only country in the world required to make significant cuts in emissions. Third World countries are exempt, the Europeans get credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet-era industries, and no country in the Western hemisphere except Canada is signing.
o Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
o As the effects trickle through other industries, workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.
o The only winners will be countries such as Russia, India, and China, from which Canada will have to buy “emissions credits.” Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.
o On top of all this, Kyoto will not even reduce greenhouse gases. By encouraging transfer of industrial production to Third World countries where emissions standards are more relaxed, it will almost certainly increase emissions on a global scale”
Current Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper – 2002.
I’m sure Mr. Harper is aware of, and reads, blogs such as this.
It’s true.. if the world’s population was liquidated by 80% by mid century…
Your readers may find the following conversation interesting and/or amusing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#IPCC_WG3_and_Greenpeace_report
It is interesting how the alarmists control an article like this.
On the contrary, 80% renewable sourced energy IS attainable IF the greens continue succeeding with the shutdown and prevention of new construction of all: fossil, nuclear, hydro plants; mining, drilling and just about every other industry in Western Civilization. By then, only the unfortunate few left here will be staring at the wind-generators waiting for that day’s ‘spin’.
Mark Wagner CPA said
Only when the collective enacts legislation that directly impacts the daily lives of the population in general will they rise up and re-take control of the legislative bodies.
No, the population in general will willingly, if not happily, accept it, as they have accepted it in the past.
musavi says:
June 16, 2011 at 11:54 am
“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.”
The moral wrongness is in his willingness to beat the drum for ideas that are designed to deceive an uninformed public and to promote a political agenda using false claims under the good name of science. Did I miss anything?
Scottish Sceptic says:
June 16, 2011 at 6:03 am
“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.”
You are on the right path. They are communists. Remember Obama’s Czar for Green Jobs Van Jones (now ex-czar), the self-avowed communist. I betcha Lisa Jackson is cut from the same cloth.
That they are called czars should be sufficient proof of thei purpose.
Mark
This is a good time for the IPCC to be DISBANDED!
Then science research can be more decentralized.Taking the pressure off the science research.
To me the IPCC as a political organization,is no longer worth looking for to their next souped up report.We KNOW it will be 50% garbage 25% irrelevant and just 25% of hard to find science.
Why bother reading their stuff anymore?
“Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated ” was that with or without extreme prejudice?
Watt’s up with RRKampen? He keeps saying the same thing over and over: [snip], [snip], [snip]. Heh.
@richard S Courtney says:
June 16, 2011 at 10:27 am
CRS, Dr.P.H:
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
—-
REPLY Indeed, I do provide international clients with exactly the type of information you seek. I’ll offer you the same billing rate, US$250/hour, that I charge them. Hell, I’ll make it US$225/hour since I like you.
I apologize if I cannot answer your question because you refuse to pay my fee.
Dave Springer: “…but a barrel of oil won’t be saleable for over $15 because biofuel will be cheaper.”
Excellent. Then I presume you are in full support of the Senate canceling ethanol subsidies this week.
Let’s be thankful for Britain in particular and Australia as a close second, two nations who seem to be on the path of proving out, one way or another the feasability, of renewable energy and carbon taxes. They’re the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” as it were. The rest of the world can patiently wait and see what is proven by their adventures.
Does it appear to anyone besides myself that the warmists might actually be gaining ground? I can’t get over the fact that the MSM, perhaps even more so than ever are glued to the alarmist rhetoric. Allowing for the fact that that observation is subjective, I’m stunned that with all thats been revealed by the McIntyres of the world, this is still the case.
“…under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC”
Methinks this would be called an oxymoron.
A new IPCC fiasco in the making. They have a bunch of geo-engineering advocates in charge of making proposals about… surprise… geo-engineering solutions.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/06/if-one-bad-idea-doesnt-work-try-them-all-at-the-same-time/
Mark says:
June 16, 2011 at 6:08 am
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.
—
Ugh. No, it really isn’t. They make some very generous assumptions about the availability of wind, but the true flaw in their analysis is that they completely gloss over the rare earth requirements for their utopian scheme and simply point out that availability of some other materials(lithium, indium) may be a problem. Just doing some back of the envelope calculations and giving them the benefit of assuming that their 5MW turbines use the same amount of RE’s as a typical 3.5MW turbine and only replacing the US’ fleet of vehicles with electric powertrains we would need to triple global rare earth production for the next 20 years. Even with the modest production of hybrids and turbines today the world is already running a small deficit of RE production relative to consumption. The only bit of good news they could count on is that rolling out their plan would only use up about 5% of the estimated reserves of RE’s.
No, it’s truly a poorly thought out plan with some wildly optimistic assumptions.