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.
@Mark Wilson
“The only subsidies that oil gets is the depreciation allowance, which is the same allowance that every other business in the country gets, even your PV manufacturers.?”
Actually, this really depends on the country – we shouldn’t be assuming that everyone lives in the US. Right now there is a subsidy in many countries to reduce the overall cost per kw of solar power on large-scale generation projects. This certainly goes beyond depreciation. And there are subsidies to reduce installation costs, low interest loans and a whole bag of incentives for people to opt for solar power. However it is conceivable that subsidies won’t be needed in the medium term as solar falls well below the $1.00 per kw range that it is reaching now.
“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.”
I am actually interested in your source for this. Could you share it? And wouldn’t drop-in PV cells (thus renewable frames) be the way around this?
Covered in the Economist here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace
Personally, I don’t particularly like some of their tone, but they do give a pretty fair analysis of why this is bad because it looks bad with a big caveat of “even though it isn’t really”.
They also have comments by our friend Pachauri towards the end, including this:
“I talk to industry groups all the time, I advise industry groups, I don’t think there’s any imbalance there whatsoever. And I think being chair of the IPCC it’s for me to reach out to every section of society and to encourage debate, to encourage discussion irrespective of where it takes place.”
I’m not quite sure how dismissing a (correct, as it turns out) assessment of glaciers as “Voodoo science” encourages debate but I guess, in classic Team style, “that was last week, move along please”.
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.
Why not; it works for Big Pharma and the FDA!
The are two basic problems with this IPCC claim.
First, this claim is based on the usual IPCC mainstay of generating computer projections using woefully inadequate modelling, starting with dubious initial conditions. Facts and historical data to the contrary must be ignored.
Second, as usual with the alternative energy crowd, there is lots of hype about their visions and machines, but NEVER any Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) analysis proving that these alternative energies are sustainable (ie: >1.0). The only EROEI analysis I’ve uncovered on solar pv is at http://www.dieoff.org/pv. It shows a value of 0.48; totally unsustainable. My re-analysis (www.windpowerfraud.com) of the wind power EROEI of Livermore Pass, the only analysis I have been able to discover, is not the 14.87 claimed, but 0.29. Again. totally unsustainable.
Re “Philip Shehan” here and here:
I found that article on Andrew Bolt’s blog, tracked down the words you provided. Except there they are from “Brian S”, not “Philip Shehan.”
1. Are you claiming someone else’s words as your own?
2. Are you using two different nom de plumes for your disparaging remarks?
At least you posted this humorous bit in the second comment:
As was long suspected and shown in the Climategate emails, “rigorous independent examination” for a large chunk of (C)AGW-supporting work was a small clique of “climatologists” reviewing each other’s work, aka “pal review.” As shown repeatedly, with many examples on WUWT and elsewhere, some amazingly shoddy work has passed “peer review” and been published for no other notable reason than it supported (C)AGW, while work critical of (C)AGW has been subjected to extra scrutiny, demands in excess of that expected for (C)AGW-supporting work, and far from independent examination through the use of conflicted reviewers, including the selection of reviewers for whose work the particular paper under scrutiny is undermining and/or falsifying that work. And that’s when they just don’t cut to the chase and reject the work out-of-hand, as it is virtually inevitable it either will be eventually rejected or subjected to increasing demands, rising to absurdity, until the paper is withdrawn from consideration.
Peer review in climatology-related work has become corrupted, “rigorous independent examination” of (C)AGW-supporting work is a joke. That the publications you cite were determined acceptable for publication means practically nothing, save that they are far more likely to support the pre-determined views of the (C)AGW “consensus” than otherwise.
Moderate Republican:
You claimed the IPCC WG3 scenarios are “A pretty interesting read” and I asked you to explain that because I know they are junk.
You have responded at June 17, 2011 at 10:29 pm by saying you cannot explain it: you merely feel it.
However, you did add something that does interest me when you wrote;
“I found a site called CoalTrans International which has some interesting things too.”
I would be very grateful if you were to post a link to that web site because a decade ago I was Contributing Technical Editor of the journal and wrote all its articles on coal science and clean coal technology. So, I have a genuine interest in seeing what they are doing now but a ‘google’ has failed to find the web site of the journal..
Richard
From Richard S Courtney on June 18, 2011 at 12:58 pm:
Nah, that can’t be right. Haven’t you checked your SourceWatch listing? It’s noted as a neutral and unbiased resource by those of a Green/liberal/anti-capitalist bent.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney
That’s one of your “Current Positions,” according to a reliable link that’s used for several of the numbered references that leads to a “404: Not Found” error. Heck, the very first line of the entire SourceWatch entry lists being said Technical Editor as your job, with the first paragraph making clear how you are a bought and paid for lapdog servant of Big Coal . They also carefully note the lack of note of you having any academic degree whatsoever, not even a high school diploma, although there are a tiny number of instances mentioned where, possibly mistakenly, “Dr.” and “PhD” are used in conjunction with your name. Likewise it is implied you are not a scientist due to the removal of your name from the re-done Leipzig Declaration.
For added fun, the entry says “…he claimed to be an IPCC “expert reviewer”…” while linking to a source that damn well lists you as a reviewer on the 3rd AR. Oh, and clicking on the “Discussion” tab reveals this charming summary, and this is all that is there, and it lacks any references to substantiate any of it:
The “History” tab shows that even William Connolley has weighed in, perhaps his Wikipedia duties were boring that day. Although the primary author of your entry is some anonymous coward “Bonzai.” Well, best of luck getting any corrections made.
It seems possible MR just looked at that listing and decided to yank your chain using your obvious Big Coal connection.
Oh, I found the CoalTrans International site.
http://www.coaltransinternational.com/
MR thinks there’s something interesting there. Maybe he thinks it’s dirt he can throw on you. I’m just finding coal. Need some heating fuel?
kadaka (KD Knoebel):
Thanks for the info. you provide at June 18, 2011 at 10:59 pm. Whoever that character is, he is not me. He sounds like an interesting guy, though.
Your post concludes saying; “I’m just finding coal. Need some heating fuel?” I think your posting that requires me to clarify my coal connection: it is very clear and is as follows.
I was the Senior Material Scientist at the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE), my peers elected me to every elected office up to and including Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management (BACM) despite my being a scientist and my not having worked in a colliery (except for emergency duties during NUM strikes). My connection with that industry ceased when UK government closed CRE in 1995.
I wrote the Section on coal in Kempes Engineers Yearbook.
I wrote articles on coal science and clean coal techgnology for CoalTrans International and they gave me the ‘title’ of Contributing Technical Editor. The journal was bought up in (I think it was 2001) and the new owners’revamped’ it by replacing all its staff including me. I have had no contact of any kind with that journal since.
But none of those facts affect the truth of my above posts.
Also, I am an Accredited Methodist Preacher so must now rush because writing this has delayed my leaving to conduct Worship this morning.
Richard
From Richard S Courtney on June 19, 2011 at 1:32 am:
Richard,
Beyond printed words and facts lies the character of a man. I believe I know yours, and choose to accept it over the man as a character. You have nothing to prove about that to me. Your clarification is required only for others.
God bless!
. just like ..with war against the greenhouse gases … like war against drugs,war in Afganistan,Irak,Vietnam etc the truth is the FIRST VICTIM…..
…in Australia the truth/about our climate/ and nothing just the truth is owned by someone named Garnaut …..apparently with some education about economy……
Jct: Biased writing isn’t half as bad as using Mann’s “trick to hide the decline.” That’s the joker of the discussion. How much of a decline did the trick hide?
It was a decline in the proxy tree ring graph when temps were rising after 1960. It invalidated the use of such proxies for past temps, and therefore had to be hidden to keep The Narrative™ intact.
So your question is a red herring, probably deliberately so.
“they have no place to go, they’ve hit rock bottom”
Don’t worry they have already started to dig! Our entertainment for years is assured.
Did you know that Planet earth is soaring through space in orbit around our sun at an incredible 66,000 miles per hour 24/7?
How much energy do you think we can we extract by hooking our windmills up to that?
Of course there is no wind in space, so there a are few technical details to put it all together.
Here’s a link to the “Four Elements of Free Energy revised.” Gives the technical details of to how to do it.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=132281;
patrick;
When I first saw your comment, I was pretty convinced you were a loon. After reading through your linked paper, I’m relieved to report that my first impression was accurate.
Mr Watts
Are you aware that three other contributors came from Chevron (though one from its geothermal research wing), one from Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, and one from a mining company. In fact, one of Teske’s co-authors on Chapter 10 of the report was Raymond Wright from Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica.
Please be more thorough with your research in future.
Unfortunately for this author, the IPCC did *NOT* blunder at all. Facts from Stanford University are here http://t.co/H0VjUVe