IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke

On May 9, 2011, the IPCC announced:

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

In accompanying interviews, IPCC officials said that the obstacles were not scientific or technological, but merely a matter of political will.

Little of the increase was due to ‘traditional’ renewables (hydro and ‘traditional’ biomass, mostly dung), but to solar, wind and non-traditional biomass.

I, for one, was keenly interested in how IPCC got to its potential 80%. Unfortunately, in keeping with execrable IPCC practices, the supporting documents for the Renewables Study were not made available at the time of the original announcement. (Only the Summary for Policy-makers was made available at the time.) This showed one worrying aspect of the announcement. The report was based on 164 ‘scenarios’ and the ‘up to 80%” scenario in the lead sentence of their press release was not representative of their scenarios, but the absolute top end. This sort of press release is not permitted in mining promotions and it remains a mystery to me why it is tolerated in academic press releases or press releases by international institutions.

The underlying report was scheduled for release on June 14 and was released today on schedule. Naturally, I was interested in the provenance of the 80% scenario and in determining precisely what due diligence had been carried out by IPCC to determine the realism of this scenario prior to endorsing it in their press release. I hoped against hope that it would be something more than an IPCC cover version of a Greenpeace study but was disappointed.

The scenarios are in chapter 10 of the Report. authors of the chapter are as follows (mainly German):

CLAs -Manfred Fischedick (Germany) and Roberto Schaeffer (Brazil). Lead Authors: Akintayo Adedoyin (Botswana), Makoto Akai (Japan), Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Leon Clarke (USA), Volker Krey (Austria/Germany), Ilkka Savolainen (Finland), Sven Teske (Germany), Diana Ürge‐Vorsatz (Hungary), Raymond Wright (Jamaica).

The 164 scenarios are referenced to a just-published and paywalled article by two of the Lead Authors (Krey and Clarke, 2011, Climate Policy). Update – Since this article has been relied upon in an IPCC report, it is liberated here.

Chapter 10 isolated four scenarios for more detailed reporting, one of which can be identified with the scenario featured in the IPCC press release. The identification is on the basis of Table 10.3 which shows 77% renewables in 2050 for the ER-2010 scenatio attributed to Teske et al., 2010. (Teske being another Chapter 10 Lead Author. This scenario is described as follows:

Low demand (e.g., due to a significant increase in energy efficiency) is combined with high RE deployment, no employment of CCS and a global nuclear phase-out by 2045 in the third mitigation scenario, Advanced Energy [R]evolution 2010 (Teske et al., 2010) (henceforth ER-2010).

Teske et al 2010 – online here – is cited as follows:

Teske, S., T[homas] Pregger, S[onja] Simon, T[obias] Naegler, W[ina] Graus, and C[hristine] Lins (2010). Energy [R]evolution 2010—a sustainable world energy outlook. Energy Efficiency, doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y.

However, googling the title led me first to a different article with the almost the same
title ‘energy [ r]evolution:A SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK’ online here. This version is a joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council, self-described as the ‘umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry’. the title page shows:

project manager & lead author – Sven Teske
EREC Oliver Schäfer, Arthouros Zervos,
Greenpeace International – Sven Teske, Jan Béranek, Stephanie Tunmore
research & co-authors
DLR, Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Department of Systems Analysis and
Technology Assessment, Stuttgart, Germany: Dr. Wolfram Krewitt, Dr. Sonja Simon, Dr. Thomas Pregger.
DLR, Institute of Vehicle Concepts, Stuttgart, Germany: Dr. Stephan Schmid
Ecofys BV, Utrecht, The Netherlands: Wina Graus, Eliane Blomen.

The preface to the Greenpeace report is by one R.K. Pachauri, who stated:

This edition of Energy [R]evolution Scenarios provides a detailed analysis of the energy efficiency potential and choices in the transport sector. The material presented in this publication provides a useful basis for considering specific policies and developments that would be of value not only to the world but for different countries as they attempt to meet the global challenge confronting them. The work carried out in
the following pages is comprehensive and rigorous, and even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions that are linked with specific energy scenarios for the future.

Dr. R. K. Pachauri
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES INSTITUTE (TERI) AND CHAIRMAN, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)

Returning now to the original lead to the IPCC Press Release on renewables:

Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.

The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario.

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.

174 Comments

  1. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    Unacceptable for those wanting to think for themselves, but not for those wanting to have their greenviews verified.

  2. grrr
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 5:56 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    great digging. This news needs to be spread to a wider community – I am wondering if there are there any media savvy pr people reading this who can offer their services to help turn blogs like this into press releases and distribute them?

  3. Steve E
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    WOW! It still goes on status quo as if nothing has happened in the last two years.

    It is clear as Steve says, “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.”

    Still incest is bred within “the family.” Who has the strength and ability to break the circle? I’m not sure, but a respected, major world leader needs to step forward to bring an objective, logical, scientifically based (albeit, political) view to climate change–oops–and now energy use; oops, and now land use; oops and now species extinction…etc., etc…

    • Richard
      Posted Jun 18, 2011 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

      I’m afraid it is just another case of “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up”.

  4. Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    Absolutely they should be terminated were motivations of the IPCC to be benign and scientific, but from history, there is little doubt in my mind that the organization would simply reconstruct a more subtle version having the same result.

    • Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

      Defunding of the UN is a superior option IMHO.

      • Steve E
        Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 6:08 PM | Permalink

        Jeff, I agree, however, once the invitation has been made and accepted it’s next to impossible to retract it. Before we defund the UN we need to uninvite “nations” which fail to make the grade. The U.N. Charter is very specific and very few nations meet the grade. Unfortunately, and I think you’re getting at this, membership has become so polluted, it’s impossible to get a fair hearing within the U.N.

        What’s really sad is when our so-called allies turn against our common interests.

  5. Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    There is a tragedy brewing in all of this somewhere. At some point a scientist or administrator is going to go the way of Colonel Nicholson in Bridge Over the River Kwai, realising what he and his kind have done to science as an institution.

    Madness.

    • stan
      Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 7:48 PM | Permalink

      Interesting parallel.

  6. Steve E
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    Tom,

    I doubt that is going to happen. Even Nicholson, in death falls over the detonator. Hardly a realization, much less a victory.

    “The obsession is with building a better bridge, and finishing it on time. The story’s great irony is that once Nicholson successfully stands up to Saito, he immediately devotes himself to Saito’s project as if it is his own. He suggests a better site for the bridge, he offers blueprints and timetables, and he even enters Clipton’s hospital hut in search of more workers, and marches out at the head of a column of the sick and the lame. On the night before the first train crossing, he hammers into place a plaque boasting that the bridge was ‘designed and built by soldiers of the British army’.

    It is Clipton who asks him, if they might not be accused of aiding the enemy. Not at all, Guinness replies,

    ‘One day the war will be over, and I hope the people who use this bridge in years to come will remember how it was built, and who built it’.

    A pleasant sentiment, but in the meantime the bridge will be used to advance the war against the Allies. Nicholson is so proud of the bridge that he essentially forgets about the war.” http://www.britishcinemagreats.com/films_page/bridge_on_the_river_kwai/bridge_on_the_river_kwai_page_two.htm

  7. Jonas
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 6:34 PM | Permalink

    It seems that what is being discussed here will be no longer relevant to climate for at least 22 years!

    http://news.google.com.au/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=au&cf=all&ncl=dC3i_C9v4lXT6fM5hc6ayHMqN1V7M

  8. TAC
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 6:48 PM | Permalink

    “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad with power.”

  9. Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    Not sure that expecting the IPCC to be different from how we know it is helps. Certainly the point about ‘who’ is well made, but I also find this an uncharacteristically angry post. Maybe as a pro-renewables climate-skeptic I am being overly sensitive.

    A lesson I have learnt, in part from lurking here, is that judging material on the basis of ‘who’ (author / affiliation / journal) is, at best, a fraught approach. While this report is most likely a political product, and while my somewhat informed view is that 50% renewables by mid century is a more realistic aim for the pro-renewables crowd, it remains that the report itself may contain valuable / interesting / insightful analysis.

    • ianl8888
      Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

      ” … it remains that the report itself may contain valuable / interesting / insightful analysis”

      Maybe, but the base report that this relies on is paywalled … no hoi-polloi here, thank you

    • Paul Penrose
      Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 9:21 PM | Permalink

      The point,rafnics, is that the IPCC report is supposed to be an independent assessment, but Steve’s shown that’s just a sham. How can we believe anything they say? And then they quote the absolute upper limit in the press release without putting it in any kind of meaningful context. I suspect that if one were to conduct a proper statistical analysis of the report we would find that the likelihood of the 80% “estimate” is no higher than the lower bound, whatever that is (probably 10 or 20%). This is just naked activism by the IPCC, plain and simple.

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 10:32 PM | Permalink

        These scenarios don’t have any statistical meaning nor can any likelihood be assigned to them.

        • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 3:57 AM | Permalink

          Steve McIntyre (Jun 14 22:32), I can’t think of a better definition of Post Normal Science.

        • mark t
          Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

          Agreed. The same can be said of their likelihood scenarios regarding the climate in general (IPCC’s “66% is likely” type statements in AR4) – they’re just guesses. We engineering folk make such guesses all the time but typically couch them in language appropriate for the listener to understand how meaningless the guesses really are.

          Mark

        • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

          Actually, WG3 is a little different from WG1 and 2, because it isn’t really a scientific assessment, it’s technological futurism. It’s more in the category of the people who predicted in 1960 that we’d all have flying cars (or at least nuclear fusion) by now. It’s impossible to make these kinds of predictions through any kind of rational scientific process, and the track record of futurists is about as good as the track record of general prognosticators like Nostradamus.

          So, even if there were statistics, they would be of the “we believe that there’s a 50% chance of having fusion power by 2050″ variety; i.e. just an intuitive guess. That’s not a calculation in any meaningful sense (see: Fermi Paradox).

        • RC Saumarez
          Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

          Not only do the reports have no statistical meaning, they have no engineering mean, or at least, to those who actually make things work. If these people were proper engineers, they wouldn’t contemplate the solutions they have proposed. They are a bunch of academics who can model and do little else in the real world because they have not, in general, solved real problems. As for Greenpeace, have it got any track record in real world engineering solutions?

        • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

          Besides attempting to engineer the de-industrialization of the West? Don’t think so.

  10. Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    ” Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch. ”

    Just terminate them and save the money. No further action required.

  11. jcspe
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 7:13 PM | Permalink

    “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated”

    maybe, but I’d be happy enough if they were just fired.

  12. Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    Teske-gate?

  13. Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    Sven has his Greenpeace email address on page 2 of the report, in case you’re interested in asking him some followup questions.

  14. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 7:36 PM | Permalink

    Krey and Clarke liberated here.

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 7:45 PM | Permalink

    krey and Clarke cite Krewitt et al 2009 here – which looks very similar to Teske et al 2010.

    • Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

      If by similar one means completely ‘recycled’!

      E.g.

      Teske et al, 2011: ‘A ten-region global energy system model implemented in the MESAP/PlaNet environment (MESAP 2008) is used for simulating global energy supply strategies.’

      Krewitt et al, 2009: ‘A 10-region global energy system model implemented in the MESAP-PlaNet environment (MESAP, 2008) is used for simulating global energy supply strategies.’

      No wonder they’re getting the big bucks – they changed a ‘ten’ to a ’10’!

      • Dave Dardinger
        Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

        Not only that, they changed a slash to a dash!

    • Mark T
      Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

      Cited? If not, where’s DC to cry plagiarism?

      Mark

      • Henry
        Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 2:28 AM | Permalink

        The 2010 version (published in Energy Efficiency in 2011) is an update and starts:

        Nearly 2 years after publishing the first two editions Energy [R]evolution scenario in 2007 and 2008 (Greenpeace/EREC 2007; Krewitt et al. 2007), the latest Energy [R]evolution 2010 scenario picks up recent trends in global energy systems and analyses to which extent they affect chances for achieving the overall target

        The 2008 version (published in Energy Policy in 2009) starts

        Nearly two years after publishing the first Energy [R]evolution scenario in 2007 (Greenpeace/EREC, 2007; Krewitt et al. 2007), the new Energy [R]evolution 2008 scenario picks up recent trends in global socio-economic developments, and analyses to which extent they affect chances for achieving the still valid overall target

        The 2010 update does not seem to contain an explicit reference to the 2008 update, despite reusing some phrases. As usual in such cases this looks like carelessness: there is probably no attempt to deceive and the only value of taking such issues further if you are playing a hypocrisy name-calling game.

        • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

          Are you suggesting that updating the representation of integers in articles every year or two is not a vital contribution to society? I suspect that the rigors and selfless dedication of a career in climatology are not for you.

  16. Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 8:17 PM | Permalink

    Yes, this is the same IPCC which has the cheek to say that ‘blogs’ cannot be considered admissible sources of information but yet, avoided by hook and crook, saying anything about using climate change and environmental activist material.

    Ben Pile touched on the same topic here: The Inter-NGO Panel on Climate Change

    More Greenpeace and WWF IPCC stuff here:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/25/wwfs-chief-spokesperson-joins-ipcc/

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/22/ka-ching-more-greenpeace-money/

  17. theduke
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    This is a huge scoop, Steve.

    “The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.”

    It doesn’t get any more intellectually corrupt than that.

    • Bernie
      Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 11:05 PM | Permalink

      I agree. Great job Steve. Steve’s attention to detail and bear-trap memory are wonders to behold. The devil is in the detail. Like many I would have simply written this of as more wishful thinking hyperbole completely detached from reality. As Steve so pungently notes, the previously unreported source of the “studies” is in fact Greenpeace and it shows that the IPCC as a supposedly science based policy institution has been completely and thoroughly coopted and corrupted. This story has the same potency as the the Himalayan Glacier bodge. What is sad is to see so many bright minds in the developed economies suspending their critical judgement as they pursue a Harry Potter type reality. We have seen it before. It is how Madoff types can build giant Ponzi schemes and political tyrants disguise the bankruptcy of their policies.
      I think it is time for someone to do some more Social Network Analysis.

  18. justbeau
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 9:05 PM | Permalink

    This is a wonderful and delicious discovery. Just when we thought the IPCC could not sink any further in terms of credibility, Dr. Pauchauri thought of a new way!

  19. PaddikJ
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 9:06 PM | Permalink

    Once again I applaud Steve’s patience & diligence. If I had read that preposterous claim in a magazine I would probably have rolled my eyes and tossed the magazine into a corner – meaning I would have missed the real story.

    Steve, OTOH, starts turning over rocks to see what crawls out, and so another IPCC scandal is exposed. If we had any real news outlets it would be headline-worthy.

    So – is this the third or fourth time that the IPCC Global Consensus of Our Best Scientific Minds has issued a pronouncement based on the work of some environmental group? You’d think that after the Himalayan Glaciers debacle they’d be a little more careful; they must be either clueless, or (more likely) they know they’re untouchable.

  20. Venter
    Posted Jun 14, 2011 at 11:40 PM | Permalink

    Absolutely ridiculous and par on course for what’s expected from that corrupt organisation and it’s head.

  21. EdeF
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:03 AM | Permalink

    …….80% of the world’s energy supply will be provided by renewables….

    What fraction of todays energy supply will that be in 2045? 20 percent? 30 percent?

    Now if you tell me Greenpeace was hired to do PR………….

  22. Dan White
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:13 AM | Permalink

    Steve – You state:
    “The report was based on 164 ‘scenarios’ and the ‘up to 80%” scenario in the lead sentence of their press release was not representative of their scenarios, but the absolute top end.”

    I realize that the 80% refers to the upper end of the estimates, but the “up to” part is NOT a quote from the lead sentence of the press release. It just says “close to” as in 77%, not 80%. It’s not a critical point, but there is a significant distinction between “up to” and “close to.”

    • Roger Knights
      Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 5:32 AM | Permalink

      “there is a significant distinction between “up to” and “close to.””

      I agree and hope the original words are struck through and replaced. One should be very careful to quote exactly when using quotation marks, especially in an article like this.

  23. Henry
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 1:53 AM | Permalink

    “Someone interested in how the world”

    Is there something missing?

  24. Latimer Alder
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 1:56 AM | Permalink

    If a clever person with graphical skills could turn their mind to it, I think that this could be summarised in a single factual diagram that could be easily assimilated by the non-specialist (eg politician, interested layman, journo etc).

    Perhaps Josh the cartoonist could be persuaded? But to make it most effective, it would need to be a straightforward telling of the story. And allow the viewer to understand the events and then draw their own conclusions.

    Blogs are great for some things, but you have to be willing to spend time and follow the argeuments in depth. For casual uncommitted readers, pictures paint a thousand words.

    • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 8:55 AM | Permalink

      Latimer, I had a go

      … but it could not be as comic as the actual story could it!

  25. pesadia
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 2:47 AM | Permalink

    There seems to be a sense of outrage in this article with which I concur.Although I haven’t the faintest idea what we can do about this (insert suitable adjective) organisation, someone in authority must take action soon or it will be too late.
    -snip ot
    We are all very much in your debt Steve and I for one hope that you will find the strength to continue for a little longer.
    Thank you.

  26. Steeptown
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 2:54 AM | Permalink

    Where’s Nick Stokes to defend the indefensible?

  27. Alexander K
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 3:13 AM | Permalink

    The stench of corruption from the IPCC never diminishes.
    Promoting this stuff doesn’t even come up to the standard for ‘Voodoo Science’. Once again, the IPCC promotes a belief system and its teaching.

  28. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 3:38 AM | Permalink

    rafniks writes “Maybe as a pro-renewables climate-skeptic I am being overly sensitive.”

    Can you not see the circularity of your illogical position?

    I think that many would agree that there is a place for renewables (conventionally defined) in small niches where isolation or availability/non-availability of certain resources makes them worthwhile. However, no serious person who had followed the derivation of costs or studied the performance of major energy generating systems would come out honestly as “pro-renewables”, in a sense of providing significant energy, in part because the calculations that helped to formulate your position are exposed as suspect by people like Steve on this post. Besides, the basic physics of energy density had not yet been solved; it seems insoluble because we can’t really change the sun’s output upwards, or increase the global wind energy, these being highly dilute compared to today’s best solutions.

    I do not think you are being “overly sensitive”. I think you need to use the words “inadequately thorough”. Look up authoritative sources rather than propaganda posters.

    Steve – in fairness, I haven’t yet attempted to analyze the Greenpeace scenario. My objection here is to IPCC’s failure to conduct independent due diligence before promoting the Greenpeace scenario to the world.

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 7:04 AM | Permalink

      You ask: “Can you not see the circularity of your illogical position?”

      Is this a similar sort of question to “have you stopped beating your wife?”

      Maybe you could be clear in stating what you see my “position” to be, explain what you see as illogical, and then be humble enough to seek a response before passing judgement. This would be much politer than leaving me to respond to your vague and rude assertions.

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

      rafnics: Maybe as a pro-renewables climate-skeptic …

      Steve: In fairness, I haven’t yet attempted to analyze the Greenpeace scenario …

      Exactly. Go carefully here, good people. Step at a time. To doubt the IPCC is not to say that every word of the pro-nuclear lobby is gospel.

  29. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 4:05 AM | Permalink

    Contest, I’ll get the ball rolling.

    1. We could have a self-sufficient Lunar colony by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

    2. Fusion power could generate all the energy the world needs by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

    3. AIDS, All Cancers, all infectious disease, and aging could be cured by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

    4. Proof of the existence of God could be established by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

    5. Proof of the nonexistence of God could be established by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

    • Speed
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 4:46 AM | Permalink

      The Boeing 747 would have gone into production by the middle of the last century if it had been backed by the right enabling policies.

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:22 AM | Permalink

      Human boredom and that vague sense of ennui could be a thing of the past …

      • stephen richards
        Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 6:06 AM | Permalink

        ennuis, Richard.

        • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 6:14 AM | Permalink

          Zut alors!

        • w.w. wygart
          Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

          relâcher alors, Richard.

          ‘Ennui’, is indeed a valid spelling ‘dans la langue anglaise’.

          W^3

    • Robinson
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

      6. My mild depression due to not being a millionaire playboy could be cured if backed by the right enabling public policies, a new report shows (also, appeal for funding).

    • Gary
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 8:03 AM | Permalink

      The IPCC could become a credible source of climate assessment by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies a new report shows.

      80% chance.

      Press conference at 1 pm.

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM | Permalink

      Orange water given bucket of plaster (look it up)

    • HAS
      Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

      If we had eggs we could have ham and eggs if we had ham, a new report shows.

    • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 8:27 AM | Permalink

      Totalitarian misanthropists seeking to strip people and nations of their individuality and freedoms and money could be eliminated from this earth by mid-century with funding ……… no nvm, they will always be with us, we just have to remain diligent.

  30. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 4:57 AM | Permalink

    Meanwhile, Pachauri is still peddling the “extremely open, transparent, process on all drafts” of all IPCC reports … and right in my own backyard! He was here in Vancouver on June 11, in a cosy 90 minute conversation with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge as a keynote speaker at an “International Student Energy Summit”. Video is here. Starts at approx 01:00 (advance to “Slide 13″ on left hand side)

    I lost count of the number of times Pachauri said, “We have to ensure that there is a price on carbon” and/or variants thereof. And, needless to say, he mentioned all the talking points from the Press Release on this SRREN travesty.

    As for lead authors reviewing/citing their own work … the IPCC’s got it covered in their package of “reforms” in response to the InterAcademy Council review: The task group on Conflict of Interest took a leaf from the Muir Russell report and tapped into the “team-work” side-step.

    On the bright side, while he took some predictable pot-shots (thanks to Mansbridge’s feeding of very convenient questions) at critics, notwithstanding all the press he’s received in which he’s dubbed as “world’s leading authority on climate change”, he admitted that he’s “not a climate scientist”.

    Oh, yes, and about a little over half-way through (sorry I neglected to mark the time) he showed a video to demonstrate all that TERI is doing to “bring light into a billion homes”: Solar lanterns, and all that jazz.

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:02 AM | Permalink

      Sorry I messed up the formatting on the video link above. Video is here

  31. KnR
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:20 AM | Permalink

    Sorry its no late this 80% BS has already got out there pushed on the wings of a compliant press , lets be honest we have known for a long time IPCC recycles Greenpeace PR pieces as ‘science’ becasue bottom line its prime function is political advocacy not science. So a good spot , no surprise and great shame that those how pushed this BS in public will never admit to what is actual ‘worth’ to that same public .

  32. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:24 AM | Permalink

    Note what Mark Lynas, veteran green has to say about this:

    Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time. Yet this time McIntyre has got it right.

    Only got it this time I’m afraid Steve. But this faintest of praise says everything. Because he actually mentioned you!

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:39 AM | Permalink

      As in, the other times, he got it wrong?

      • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:59 AM | Permalink

        It appears that Lynas thinks so. But that’s the glass half empty view of the situation. I’m a glass half full man myself. Once they admit Steve was right about one thing, the One Who Could Not Be Named, the rest I think will quickly slot into place.

        • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM | Permalink

          In the comments on the thread on his blog, Lynas freely admits that he sides with Mann on the subject of the validity of the Hockey Stick, lacking the expertise to check the working for himself.

          And this seems a very common (and if we’re honest) reasonable approach to take where the epistemology is in doubt; Lynas defers to a prominent expert who he believes to be better qualified, “knowing” that peer-review is a safeguard against significant errors or omissions.

          All you can reasonably ask of someone is to dig deeper at their own pace, and to his credit he appears willing.

        • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 4:08 AM | Permalink

          Well said. We’ve always said Andrew Montford’s power of explanation are good. It won’t be the final test of that.

  33. Dick Atkinson
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 6:42 AM | Permalink

    On Teske:

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,185077,00.html

    Lifelong activists are not scientists – certainly Teske, like that other politicking engineer Pachauri, lacks both the standing and the objectivity even to select and censor the work of real scientists.

  34. RB
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 6:54 AM | Permalink

    It is another monumental gaffe by the IPCC. The organisation now has zero credibility. It must be disbanded.

  35. Martin Brumby
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 7:30 AM | Permalink

    80% renewables by 2050?

    Bah! These guys are milksops. Not even trying. I suspect they are all shills for BigOil.

    The REAL planet savers are here:-

    http://zerocarbonbritain.org/

    100% renewables by 2030!

    That’ll be the ticket! They don’t mess about. And look who wrote one of the forewords, why none other than:-
    Sir John Houghton, Former Co-Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Nice one, Sir John!

    And amongst the sponsors:-
    Wow, UEA and the MET Office!

    and they shut down all the old lunatic asylums……

    • Mike Jackson
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 3:10 PM | Permalink

      … and we know where all the inmates went, Martin, don’t we?!

  36. Orson
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 7:36 AM | Permalink

    I haven’t yet finished catching up on this thread. However, with all the bashing of the IPCC relying on Greenpeace, it would behooves people to get a good insiders grip on what this enviro-wacked group is all about.

    The last scientist on Greenpeace Board of Directors was Patrick Moore, (PhD, ecology from the University of British Columbia), resigning in the late 1980s. Moore needs no introduction: he was among those interviewed in the “Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary.

    His memoir cum environmentalist statement came out last December, 2010: “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.” At the core, it shows Moore’s epiphany at a UN sponsored environmental activist conference in Nairobi, 1982, when the author decided that what Western enviro-idealists wanted profoundly clashed with people from developing countries. Sacrificing their desires and needs, which Greenpeace demands, was anti-human for Moore.

    In chapter 20, “Climate of Fear,” Moore has a very up to date, science-based, 43 page summary of the skeptic position on AGW, with around 130 footnotes, often to internet-based sources. For merely $2, it is basic enough to hand out to people I meet who are curious about my thinking on AGW.

    Moore is not just a great dissenter. He is also, like Steve, a personal hero of mine.

    • Sean
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

      Thanks for the tip. I just ordered it on Amazon. The Kindle edition is $9.99.

  37. Martin Brumby
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 7:41 AM | Permalink

    And just in case you were wondering if anything could possibly be dafter than this “80% renewables” nonsense, have a read of this:-

    snip- PLEASE dont use this as an occasion to merely complain about other things.

  38. Frank K.
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 7:51 AM | Permalink

    “The basis for this claim is a Greenpeace scenario. The Lead Author of the IPCC assessment of the Greenpeace scenario was the same Greenpeace employee who had prepared the Greenpeace scenarios, the introduction to which was written by IPCC chair Pachauri.”

    This almost sounds like Greenpeace is the driving force behind the IPCC. Next thing we’ll hear is that Greenpeace is writing all of the climate simulation codes…(of course, one could be forgiven for confusing Greenpeace activists with mainstream climate scientists)


    Steve- I said nothing about climate simulation codes. If there is anything incorrect in what I said here, I would appreciate it if you drew it to my attention. Please do not fabricate claims that were not made.

    • Frank K.
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

      Steve – I was being sarcastic (should use a /sarc tag next time). Sorry.

  39. Dick Atkinson
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 9:03 AM | Permalink

    80% renewables by 2050 contrasts interestingly with c 25% by renewables and c 25% by efficiency according to the Greenpeace commissioned report in 2007. Obviously there have been immense improvements in renewables technology in just 4 years.

  40. PaulS
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    ‘It is totally unacceptable that… an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work.’

    How would it work in practice if this was prevented? You’re effectively saying that Lead Authors should have no working experience in the field they’re reporting on, recent experience anyway. This lack of experience and knowledge would necessitate a much greater reliance on more anonymous contributing authors. In the event of glaring problems slipping through the Lead Author can simply shrug and justifiably say “How was I to know?” A Lead Author who *should* understand the issues of a subject provides more accountability since the report has their name indelibly stamped upon it.

    • Sean
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

      If accountability were the goal, we would see lots of disclosure.

      In this case, the report would say “Accoring to a Greenpeace analysis, …”

      Then they could add that “We have [further tested the Greenpeace scenario] [assumed the Greenpeace scenario to be accurate because we trust Greenpeace] [accepted the Greenpeace scenario because its author is well respected] [realized that I am the author] etc”

      • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 5:07 AM | Permalink

        Sven Teske handly hides the fact that he works for Greenpeace! BUT I agree that any conflict of interest MUST be examined in detail and openly. Riders for this kind of thing, though, should include any types of conflict of interest. Anyone who is, for example, a mining consultant should not be barred from doing statistical analysis related to climate change because they might have an association with fossil fuels, but should this information be plastered on the front of their comments? If not, why is Greenpeace a special case but other lobby groups/special interests/likely bias not?

        • RomanM
          Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 6:04 AM | Permalink

          That is a real stretch! Analyzing the statistical quality (or lack thereof) of scientific papers is hardly comparable to the production of policy papers written under the umbrella of an intergovernmental agency.

          The possible conflict of interest of the statistical analyst is irrelevant to the evaluation of the correctness of the analysis. However, the agenda of the policy analyst forms the basis on which the possibly far-reaching recommendations are made and is integral to the interpretation of the recommendations themselves. If the analyst is an active member of an advocacy group, it would hardly be surprising that the aims of that group are strongly reflected in the policy paper. This connection should be plainly obvious to the policy makers who would be basing their decisions on the report. It should apply to every individual who is making policy recommendations which can impact the future of our society.

          Anyone who is, for example, a mining consultant should not be barred from doing statistical analysis related to climate change because they might have an association with fossil fuels…

          Do you have some actual information concerning such an association for the host of this blog or is it just another underhanded statement to perpetuate the insinuation that such a relationship exists?

        • Venter
          Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 6:17 AM | Permalink

          That’s the usual underhanded way of Paul Haynes. He goes blog to blog and does this. e think’s he’s too smart. He used to pump his blog in all the posts in various blogs till he was told unceremoniously to quit promoting his blog in other forums.

        • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM | Permalink

          “Do you have some actual information concerning such an association”
          No, it speaks for itself – it is an ILLUSTRATION of how a smear works – like saying that if Greenpeace are involved, it MUST be based on a lie.

          Venter – who, with the exception of YOU ever asked me to quite putting a link on a post? I was first accused of being an anonymous blogger, THEN, when I put all my details into the fields, I was accused of being some kind of “PR” man, THEN, when I detailed who I was and what I write, YOU accused me of shamelessly promoting my blog. Your use of the passive is a give-away that you want to hide WHO actually said it.
          BUT rule number 1 on blogs, assume good faith, so I assume you like the poetic effect of writing in the passive.

        • RomanM
          Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

          You are a piece of work.

          No, it speaks for itself – it is an ILLUSTRATION of how a smear works – like saying that if Greenpeace are involved, it MUST be based on a lie.

          What exactly is the correspondence in your analogy here. In the case of the “anonymous mining consultant”, you make an implication (for which you cannot provide any evidence of truthfulness) perpetuating the talking point that the consultant is in the employ of the “evil” fossil fuel industry. This supposedly impugns an objective technical analysis which can stand or fall on its own merits. It IS an illustration of how a smear by Paul Haynes works, but it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

          On the other hand, we have the true statement that the author of an important subjective policy report is an activist member of an advocacy group with a proven track record of promoting certain types of energy and opposing others. We are then supposed to assume that the author’s previous history plays no role whatsoever in the conclusions of the report. It is more like saying “If Greenpeace are involved, it WILL be based on the Greenpeace agenda. Read this report with that in mind.”.

          The latter affiliation and the author’s credentials (what exactly are they in this case?) should be listed front and center under the author’s name for such a document.

        • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

          Sorry for being a piece of work (is that Cockney Rhyming slang for Jerk?), but I am just trying to put the other side of the discussion as best I can.

          “It IS an illustration of how a smear by Paul Haynes works, but it is not relevant to the discussion at hand”
          for the record, I hold Steve to be someone with integrity, and would like him to work with the people at CRU in a way that would be beneficial to bits of their research. He has his agenda, sure, but everyone does (but we shouldn’t define people by their agenda – this is the first step to smearing someone) but he is good at what he does and I like HIS blog posts and I have learnt a lot from reading them and asking myself and my colleagues questions (although many of the comments by other users are less helpful). I try not to smear people; if I disagree I try to show why and put the case against or show contradictions (although I sometimes use humour).

          My illustration IS relevant to the discussion, and I’ll try to show why:

          The discussion at hand – “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch” is based on the fact alone that someone works for Greenpeace. In my view this is the first step towards a smear. If you don’t see the link, then I’m afraid we are not going to get very far in our discussion.

          “the latter affiliation and the author’s credentials (what exactly are they in this case?) should be listed front and center under the author’s name for such a document” is something I agree with, but only in so far as it creates transparency NOT as a way of dismissing something as false (a danger sign, as it were).
          My analogy holds if you need a warning sign implying Greenpeace are involved, [so] it WILL be based on the Greenpeace agenda. Read this report with that in mind, why not “a mining consultant did the study, therefore, they have a pro-fossil fuel agenda. Neither case need be true, which is my point. If you don’t get it, I probably haven’t explained it very well (I don’t want to use excuses, but I am working and I can’t spend as long as I would like commenting and interacting).

          As for the IMPLICATION that if Greenpeace is involved it must be based on a lie, it is something found in the quote that “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the quote institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch” you what WHY he makes this comment – it is implied that there is a problem BECAUSE Greenpeace are involved, but Steve makes a better point in the following “responses from IPCC Srren” blog where he asks them to put up or shut up on the 80%. I agree with him on this.

          Steve – I generally try to avoid editorializing in my posts – a policy that I urge upon myself. In this case, I did not adhere to my usual policy. The disadvantage of not sticking to my policy is that it gives people the ability to change the topic from IPCC’s conduct – which should be the topic – to my editorial closing, which shouldn’t. As you observe, the challenge to Edenhofer is more pointed – and is more consistent with my usual practice. I got more frustrated than usual with IPCC.

          As to the editorial suggestion itself, it is based primarily on IPCC’s failure to deliver something that a reader could rely on – not just the Greenpeace thing, though that is symptomatic of the more general problem. By failing to do an independent assessment, they’ve wasted their franchise and everyone’s time. Better to re-constitute WG3 with people who can do the job.

        • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

          thanks Steve for the response.

        • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

          “If Greenpeace is involved it must be based on a lie”

          Where did Steve say this? Oh, you’re making stuff up, I see.

        • Venter
          Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

          Paul Haynes pretends as if everybody is asking him about who he is and to vouch for his identity he links his blog. That’s pure fantasy. Most people commenting in blogs are anonymous. Nobody cares about that. Eventhough nobody asked him today, under the same pretext, at Anthony Watt’s site discussing the same Greeenpeace report, he was linking his blog and promoting it.

        • Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 6:43 AM | Permalink

          Ventor, your comment is off topic, but I’ll respond. I was told:

          “you do not know anything about the science or lack of it exhibited by the ”Climate Scientists” but just took their word and made a post here about Steve. In short you had no clue of what you were talking about except for blind faith and belief. Quite a few of us here have read the science, read all sides of the debate and understood who is wrong and who is right. You might do everyone a favour and either read about what you are talking or just keep shut”

          So, people do care when you are opposed to their point of view, it seems, so it is quite useful to show that I work with some of the top UK climate scientists (via Tyndall), that I am involve in climate policy modelling (and climate modelling via CIAS), so I don’t get any patronising comments by anonymous people who claim I should be quiet because they “read the science” while I must be a PR guy if I want to engage with people with a different opinion to myself. When you argue ad hominem, as you seem to, best to know the kind of man you argue with – so think of it as me helping you, Venter (thats the thing that produces hot air, right?)

        • Venter
          Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

          People get told that and many things all the time. Deal with it.That’s what happens in blogs. Free and open debate. That is no excuse to go around blog to blog linking and promoting your own blog, which you unfailingly do.

        • Posted Jun 20, 2011 at 5:25 AM | Permalink

          Venter – you miss the point (again!). I’ll try to go slowly – someone gets told they don’t know what you are talking about. So, they show in their answer they know what you are talking about BUT then someone who “just doesn’t get it” questions why they are writing something, what their expertise is, so they show that they do indeed have some expertise, and then the first person says, no, no, no, don’t show do that because its self promotion, so they say why it responded to what was said and the response is: “People get told that and many things all the time. Deal with it” so it really makes you wonder why you bother trying to address people’s questions when they don’t seem to grasp the notion of discussion. Here is how it works: Person 1 makes a point, person 2 responds to that point, person 1 responds to that point, and person 2 responds to that point.
          The Venter approach: person 1 makes a point, person 2 makes an observation. Person 1 responds to thayt bservation. Person 2 makes THE SAME observation that has been debunked. Person 1 makes another attempt to explain why it has been addressed and person 2 makes the same observation. Are you Glenn Beck???

    • KnR
      Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

      In this case the person judging the quality of the claim was the very same person that has made it , ‘conflict of interest’ , and that big problem even if you ignore that its not piece of science but is in effect an marketing pitch for the renewable industry. I take a good bet the figures simply don’t stand up to real world application.

  41. BRIAN M FLYNN
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    On June 6, Dr. Pielke Jr. reported: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently adopted a major new policy for overseeing conflicts of interest among its leaders and authors…. But according to several, independent colleagues inside and outside of the IPCC, the organization still has a major decision to make on the proposed policy — when does it come into effect?….The question that the IPCC apparently has yet to resolve is whether the new policy is to apply to participants in its fifth (current) assessment report or whether to defer application of the new policy until subsequent reports.”

    Pachauri, both Director-General of The Energy And Resources Institute (TERI) and Chairman of the IPCC, is reported as saying, “My job is to successfully complete the next [IPCC] assessment”. Thus, it appears that the “question” has been answered.

  42. Jeff Norris
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    He is on vacation and probally would not care anyway but I think Dr. Pielke Jr. should be acknowledged as raising concern directly after the press release.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/05/ipcc-on-renewable-energy.html


    The IPCC does note that there are obstacles — both social and technological — that must be overcome, and appears to make some key assumptions about how this might occur (p. 12 — exact details will have to await the full report, but track records for forecasting technological innovation and social acceptance are not so good)”

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

      Pielke Jnr should certainly be honored for shining a light on the IPCC in all kinds of ways that many of us would not have been capable of. I shouldn’t think he cares about the details of the kudos on holiday but the general drift of what Steve’s uncovered would probably be worth a text message!

  43. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    Some conflict of interest! How about vested interest as well? Sven Teske founded Greenpeace Energy and was on the board from its inception in 1999, and is still on the supervisory board. Greenpeace Energy has a vested interest in ‘renewable’ power and turned over 79 million Euros in 2010, supplied 448 million kWh electricity (2010) and currently boasts over 100,000 customers.

    But then, this is no surprise when Pachauri is at the helm, because he has similar conflicts of interest and vested interests.

  44. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    It is of course possible to get to 80% green energy if you don’t mind blackouts when the wind isn’t blowing and you ignore the huge impacts on the economy of such expensive energy. It is also possible to get 100% renewable if you give up electricity and stay warm with a campfire…
    no problem.

  45. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    The Greenpeace and other NGO´s involvement in the work of IPCC seems to be the rule. The other author of the “Greenpeace report”The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) is also of some interest here, its basically a spokesman for the renewable energy industry, wind, photovoltic etc. The report should be looked upon as a buisness plan rather then a techinical or scientific report. The following is from their website:

    The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) came into existence in the year 2000, as the voice of the European renewable energy industry. As the umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry, trade and research associations active in the sectors of photovoltaics, small hydropower, solar thermal, bioenergy, geothermal, ocean, concentrated solar power and wind energy, EREC represents the entire renewable energy sector, which currently has an annual turnover of EUR 70 billion and employs over 550.000 people.

  46. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    It would be interesting to examine the claims as well as the provenance. I have done a quick review of annex three and found that Wind Capacity factors have been quoted as 20-40% As far as I know the 40% number has only been achieved once — possibly by only one machine. I do have the data archived but don’t recall the exact circumstances and don’t have time to search the net as I am out of my office for some months. If you click on my name you can go to a site that has detailed analysis of the capacity factor claims for wind turbines.

    The best numbers I have calculated on a group of turbines that generated close to 2GW was about 26% — however less than 10% of the time was the group generating near capacity and less than 15% at 25% or better. So my conclusion is to approach the results with caution as well and verify the numbers.

    I look forward to any examination of the claims made.

  47. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    Here is how the New York Times covered the IPCC press release;

    Last month, experts advising the United Nations said renewable sources could deliver nearly 80 percent of world’s total energy demand by the middle of the century. That report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the most authoritative body of experts, scientists and engineers specialized in climate change — was a welcome signal for an industry that has faltered in previous decades after government subsidies dried up and lower-cost fossil fuels made their technologies uncompetitive.

  48. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    The following non-peer-reviewed report is cited in AR4 WGIII

    Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet-2/report/2006/10/solargen3.pdf

    Credit for this (see back page) goes to Sven Teske. Teske also co-authored the Foreword with Dr Winfried Hoffmann, President of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA), which states:

    “We have now reached a point where CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions have already induced excessive floods, droughts and intensified hurricanes and typhoons…Fortunately, we have technologies at hand – the portfolio of renewable energies – that could change this downward spiral and lead to a green and sustainable future.”

    Oh yeah?

    What? An industry body with vested interests in selling photovoltaics and an environmental campaigner with vested interests in photovoltaic power generation producing a non-peer-reviewed document that is cited in AR4?

  49. Kevin Rattan
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

    Hi Steve,

    Great stuff that should get wider notice as others have suggested. Before it does, you might want to look at this bit, which has a few of typos (bit/punctuation missing after “world”, repetition “with the almost the same”, missing capital on final “the”):

    “Someone interested in how the world

    However, googling the title led me first to a different article with the almost the same title ‘energy [ r]evolution:A SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL ENERGY OUTLOOK’ online here. This version is a joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council, self-described as the ‘umbrella organisation of the European renewable energy industry’. the title page shows:”

  50. Stacey
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    @ Charles The Moderator

    By Clive James

    “About forty years ago now, the world used to hear a lot from a futurologist called Herman Kahn. Of ample girth and unquenchable volubility, Herman Kahn, who died in 1983, was always making confident pronouncements about what would happen in the future.

    So and so, he would say, would happen ten, twenny, twennyfive years from now. It wouldn’t happen tomorrow, so that you could check up on it straight way, but it would happen ten, twenny, twennyfive years from now. Some of us realised that he had invented a new unit of time, and we gave it a name. As an echo of the Fermi, which is the diameter of an electron, we called his new unit of time the Hermie.

    The merit of the Hermie, as a unit of measurement, was that, while being vague, it sounded impressive. The prediction itself might or might not have been right. Herman Kahn predicted that within one Hermie everyone in the West would fly his own helicopter and have access to free-fall sex. That didn’t happen within one Hermie, but it still might happen in the next Hermie.”
    Read and listen hear:

    http://www.clivejames.com/point-of-view/series6/hermie

    Steve
    I have posted this before but I think it is germane to the predictions of the IPCC.

  51. theduke
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

    Andrew Revkin’s comment at the NYT:

    “The new and legitimate issues raised over this energy report are particularly important as a test of the climate panel’s readiness to live up to its new pledge to be responsive to criticism as it prepares to release a report on climate and disasters later this year and then its far bigger suite of assessments coming in 2013 and 2014.”

    While Revkin’s publicizing this is welcome, his response shows real confusion. A “test?” Seems to me the report is conclusive proof that the IPCC already failed the test.

    Or perhaps we should ask how many tests do they have to fail before Andrew admits there is an institutional problem?

  52. Jeff Norris
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    Sven Teske is Greenpeace International’s Renewable Energy Director, and an electrical engineer (Dipl-Ing) with more than 10 years experience in Renewable Energy Technologies. Greenpeace just calls him a campaigner. It is interesting that for all the quotes and lectures he gives in which the word expert is thrown around his actual credentials are not mentioned.

  53. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 2:10 PM | Permalink

    Actually a little digging shows that there has been a “modest” expansion in the claim over time…

    The following may shed some light on the [r]evolutionary claims.

    check here: http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/2050cleanenergy.htm

    A new report calls for energy supplies to enter a “solar generation”

    Half of the world’s energy needs in 2050 could be met by renewables and improved efficiency, a study claims. It said alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar, could provide nearly 70% of the world’s electricity and 65% of global heat demand. Following a “business as usual” scenario would see demand for energy double by 2050, the authors warned. The study, by the German Aerospace Center, was commissioned by Greenpeace and Europe’s Renewable Energy Council.

    The report, Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook, provided a “roadmap” for meeting future energy needs without fuelling climate change, said Sven Teske from Greenpeace International. “We have shown that the world can have safe, robust renewable energy, that we can achieve the efficiencies needed and we can do all of this while enjoying global economic growth,” he said. He added that the strategy outlined in the report showed that it was economically feasible to cut global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by almost 50% over the next 43 years. ‘Solar generation’

    The report calls for ageing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants to be replaced by renewable generation when they reach the end of their operational lives. “Right now, we have five main sources of energy – oil, coal, gas, nuclear and hydro. In our scenario, we have solar, wind, geo-thermal, bio-energy and hydro,” Mr Teske told BBC News.

    I have no idea what the truth might be — but my analysis work of wind power shows that it has trouble achieving say 50% capacity or better more than 10% of the time.

  54. Jeff Norris
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/01/28/greenpeace-and-the-nobel-winning-climate-report/

    Donna tried to track his credentials down too. He was once called a Nuclear Expert and a Wind Expert.

    I have found this bio from 2009 but his experience was 20 years at the time. Curious
    Mr Sven Teske is Greenpeace International’s Renewable Energy Campaign Director. An engineering graduate, Mr Teske has worked in the field of renewable energy for over 20 years, most of that time being associated with Greenpeace. He informs and advises a range of energy industry associations, including the European Renewable Energy Council, Global Wind Energy Association and the International Energy Agency. Mr Teske is the author of numerous reports, most notably Greenpeace’s Energy [R]evolution scenarios, which model how various world regions can shift from a fossil fuel-based energy supply to one based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Living in Germany, Mr Teske has witnessed first hand the decline in employment in the German coal sector in the 1990s and, as a result of some of the most progressive renewable energy industry development policies in the world, seen the German renewable energy workforce grow to 250,000 employees.

  55. Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    Mark Lynas – author 6 degrees, Maldive Climate Change Advisor, who was in the room with Obama when the Copenhagen Talks failed, Advisory board member of the Campaign Against Climate Change (they have a deniers Hall of Shame and send out Sceptic Alerts)

    said in his own comments…

    http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/

    Mark Lynas:
    “I did side with Mike Mann on the Hockey Stick thing, without personally having the expertise to really go in and check the argument about statistical methodology. But I have to admit that McIntyre is right about this, and that I and others should have spotted the problem earlier. There should be no campaigners or anyone else with a vested interest on the ‘lead author’ team for any IPCC publication – ever.”

    I asked Mark if he had read ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ he said not, but would like a free copy..

    Professor Jonathon Jones (Physics Oxford – critical of Hide the Decline) offered him his copy..

    Judith Curry stopped by, Mark thought Donna Laframbouise had written some good stuff about Greenpeace (she was new to him, his living in a small green bubble)

    Bob Ward stops by to say why he is wrong, Mark Lynas disagrees….

    Mark has already been called a chernobyl death denier by greens, for thinking nuclear is a good option, ie reduce coal CO2 emission build nuclear and has been critical of the reaction over Japan (ie Germany to close ALL nuclear down)

    He be called a climate change denier next ;) by the same ‘greens’

    Interesting debate Steve has started with this article, interesting times ahead ; )

  56. LDLAS
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

    Ecofys thinks it can go for 100% for the WWF.

    The energy report: 100% renewable energy by 2050 (ISBN 978-2-940443-26-0)

    http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/

  57. srp
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

    For a reality check from 2010 by Severin Borenstein, head of Berkeley’s Energy Institute and a rock-solid warmer, see this:

    http://www.action2030.org/news/?p=2043

    The whole video is pretty interesting, but the first part (quoted on the page I linked) about the level of economic disadvantage faced by renewables is especially pertinent.

  58. kim
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 4:13 PM | Permalink

    Oh, God, please lift the
    Guilt of Achieving Success.
    Greenpeace in our time.
    ===========

  59. Manfred
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 4:39 PM | Permalink

    Chairman Edenhofer appears to preach the opposite of what he is to the press:

    (google translation)

    “So especially the use of so-called gray literature has been criticized. Grey literature is therefore problematic, because it has not been evaluated by independent experts, as is customary in scientific journals. Therefore, the call was loud, to drain the swamp of the gray literature, and to only use peer-reviewed literature. But now many are available for the IPCC data relevant only as gray literature: the data from the World Bank, the International Energy Agency or the International Monetary Fund, to name just a few important examples. But technical data on pilot projects, for example, ocean energy, be provided only by companies and are often so new and current, that they have still found no way into the peer-reviewed literature. Will the IPCC be relevant, it must – have access to this data – also for reasons of timeliness. However, in future, the gray literature can be identified as such, and the authors must review the facts and data provided therein and critically evaluate. This assessment must be stated explicitly in the reports of the IPCC. If data does not withstand closer scrutiny, they may not be used.”

    http://www.faz.net/artikel/C31015/pannenserie-ipcc-kommt-auf-den-pruefstand-30082329.html

  60. Doug
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 7:58 PM | Permalink

    I spent some time looking into the assumptions on natural gas in the scenario. They assume that the price of gas will track the price of oil, and that use of gas in electrical power generation will fall to 1/3 of today’s level. Recent developments in gas production, price, and usage totally contradict their scenario. Shale gas production will soar in the period they looked at. Greenpeace research could be lacking in expertise in this regard.

    • Roger Knights
      Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

      “They assume that the price of gas will track the price of oil, and that use of gas in electrical power generation will fall to 1/3 of today’s level.”

      This is a giveaway that this report was recycled from a couple of years ago.

      Critics should stress its failure to confront the challenge of shale gas, whose low price has been undermining renewables projects worldwide for the past year.

    • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

      In a more recent interview, Teske had this to say:

      Q: But you said that the gas industry had been faster off the mark than the renewables sector in reacting to Fukushima. The recent EGAF report was clearly part of a lobbying push. Do you think that right now, gas and shale gas in particular are well positioned to benefit from changing energy supply patterns after Fukushima?

      Teske: Well there is a fat chance that this will happen, which is not what we want. Basically you’re telling us to be stronger. We’ll do our best but they’re very well positioned and have far more staff than us.

      http://www.euractiv.com/en/specialreport-solarpower/ipcc-author-solar-power-reach-grid-parity-eu-2017-interview-505060

  61. observa
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 8:38 PM | Permalink

    “To explore the role of renewable energy in climate mitigation, this article provides a synthesis of the results from 162 recent medium- to long-term scenarios constructed using 15 large-scale,
    energy-economic and integrated assessment models.

    These scenarios are among the most sophisticated
    and recent explorations of how the future might evolve to address climate change.”

    Whilst I greatly admire Steve’s profound diligence and perseverance with the scientific method, I’m sorry but they totally lost me at ‘synthesis of explorations’ of ‘how the future might evolve’. Jules Verne was so much more entertaining and literate for mine, although many preferred Nostradamus by all accounts.

  62. observa
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 9:09 PM | Permalink

    Apologies again. That probably should have more correctly read ‘synthesis of explorations of scenarios’ of ‘how the future might evolve’, but then I clearly lack the intellect and powers of concentration of these learned gentlemen, no doubt caused by indulging in too much pulp science fiction.

  63. mark t
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    No, we just expect the IPCC to live up to its stated goals regarding conflict of interests and the use of peer reviewed literature.

    Mark

    • barry
      Posted Jun 24, 2011 at 12:50 AM | Permalink

      “No, we just expect the IPCC to live up to its stated goals regarding conflict of interests and the use of peer reviewed literature”

      What are these stated goals, and how have they been impinged? A link to IPCC material on this would help make your point clear.

  64. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 10:30 PM | Permalink

    I’ve tried to figure out how the wind energy numbers in Teske et al 2010 are calculated. Within the four corners of the article, they seem to materialize out of thin air, as far as i can tell. If anyone can shed light on this calculation, I’d appreciate. Others – please resist the temptation to pile on with complaints. i’m asking the question seriously and am interested in answers.

    While attention has been drawn to the scenario because of the Greenpeace connection, the scenario itself seems to be mostly wishful thinking. Anti-science, so to speak.

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 10:57 PM | Permalink

      I think the Numbers were generated by MESAP — PlaNet — A decent explanation is here.

      http://www.dconnolly.net/research/planning/tools/mesap_planet.html

      When I find their assumptions that were input to the package I will post a link here.

    • Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:40 PM | Permalink

      Steve:

      I would have to say that the numbers do appear “from nowhere”. It appears that they used PlanNet which is forward looking package — apparently with coupled linear equations used in modelling and scheduling. There appears to be no ability to inject randomness or feedback into the system so I would say that the shorter the time frame the more likely it is that it would give meaningful predictions. The first link I provided to the dconnoly site links to the Greenpeace paper which is a likely source of many of their numbers.

      http://www.seven2one.de/en/technology/mesap.html

      They appear to have input a lot of assumptions into the system but there does not appear to be a link to the numbers or even the raw output.

      They are predicting a rapidly declining cost for wind power but I don’t see that they factored in the increased manufacturing costs and transportation costs due to higher energy costs. If the inputs and equations were published it might be more understandable.

      It is quite possible that PlanNet considers the coupling of the equations to be proprietary technology. I did not see an explanation.

      Your assessment is probably correct unless a link to the data input has been missed — but even then you would need a copy of the package — price unknown.

  65. observa
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 11:52 PM | Permalink

    I’ll give em more than seven to one it aint gunna happen!

  66. Manfred
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    Following Greenpeace Germany and Potsdam Institute of Climate Science, the next independent input from Germany for the 2014 report is already in the pipeline – 2 Munich Re employees.

    http://www.munichre.net/en/media_relations/company_news/2010/2010-06-24_company_news.aspx

    • Adrian O
      Posted Jun 21, 2011 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

      Big insurance – especially reinsurance – companies have a lot to gain if people are scared by something which, the company knows – is extremely unlikely to happen…

  67. matthu
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 1:11 AM | Permalink

    Even the normally pretty warmist Independent newspaper in UK has woken up to the latest IPCC allegation and has actually mentioned Climate Audit:

    Climate change panel in hot water again over ‘biased’ energy report

    By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor

    The world’s foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.

    Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports detailing their findings. Climate scientists were criticised for their disorganisation and a lack of transparency, but none of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

    Yesterday, after the full report was released, the sceptical climate change blog Climate Audit reported that the 77 per cent figure had been derived from a joint study by Sven Teske, a climate change expert employed by Greenpeace, which opposes the use of nuclear power to cut carbon emissions.

    John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “Exxon, Chevron and the French nuclear operator EDF also contribute to the IPCC, so to paint this expert UN body as a wing of Greenpeace is preposterous.” But Mark Lynas, a climate change writer in favour of using nuclear and renewables to combat global warming, said: “It is stretching credibility for the IPCC to suggest that a richer world with two billion more people will use less energy in 2050. Campaigners should not be employed as lead authors in IPCC reports.”

  68. Daniel
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 1:21 AM | Permalink

    Steve, This is a top category finding, a potential ‘blockbuster’ post, congratulation. Will try and contribute to disseminate the info in France !

    By he way, the affiliation to GP and EREC is noted in Teske (2010)

  69. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 4:03 AM | Permalink

    Re: Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jun 15, 2011 at 3:38 AM Steve’s comment on the need to look at the IPCC report details. Point taken, response here.

    The IPCC press release states “Of the around 300 Gigawatts (GW) of new electricity generating capacity added globally between 2008 and 2009, 140 GW came from renewable energy.”

    First, the sentence is about capacity. Capacity is what is theoretically possible; but as we shall see, it is not to be confused with production.

    Of the claimed 130 GW of renewable 2008-9, we have to look at the massive 3 Gorges Dam scheme in China. “A total of 32 main power generators are planned, of which 12 sets on the right bank and 14 sets on the left were installed in 2006 and 2008 respectively. They were operational in October 2008 and generated a total of 18,300MW.” http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/ That 18,300 MW of course equals 18.3 GW, some of which was added in 2008-9.

    So, a considerable portion of the new increase 2008-2009 appears to have come from one project. This is not bad of itself, but it is an anomalous figure that might not reappear soon in another year.

    On the topic of hydro, another large project is Guri Dam in Venezuela. “As of 2009, the hydroelectric plant is the third-largest in the world, with 10,200 MW capacity.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guri_Dam However, on reading further, “The Guri dam alone supplies 73% of Venezuela’s electricity. The risks of this strategy became apparent in 2010, when, due to a prolonged drought, there was not enough water to produce enough electricity. In January 2010, the government imposed rolling blackouts of two hours every day throughout the country to combat low water levels behind the dam due to drought.”

    I wonder why Greenpeace/IPCC did not include this spectacular failure in its press release?

    One is left with an impression of selective reporting and careful wording. That was my objection. A year-by-year graph of actual renewable production would be more informative in the IPCC release.

  70. Garry
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 4:19 AM | Permalink

    If it hasn’t been mentioned already, here is an interesting and damning May 9 press release from the Greenpeace proxy organization “energy [r]evolution” here:

    http://www.energyblueprint.info/1327.0.html

    Sven Teske is identified in the May 9 press release as “Renewable Energy Director from Greenpeace International, and one of the lead authors of the report,” and also as the main press contact along with another Greenpeace colleague.

    The press release crows that “Four global energy scenarios have been analyzed … one of them is the Energy [R]evolution 2010 scenario published by Greenpeace International, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and the German Space Agency (DLR).”

  71. Roger Knights
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 6:01 AM | Permalink

    When Merkel announced the imminent shutdown of Germany’s nuclear plants, I wondered, “What was she thinking?” (I.e., how could she have gone so badly wrong?) This IPCC report is probably the explanation for her thinking that renewables can pick up the slack.

    She should be questioned to find out if this report was what she relied on.

  72. RR Kampen
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 6:23 AM | Permalink

    “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated”

    Denialism really is genocidal business.
    Don’t bother to correct, Steve.
    This nasty bit will remain on the net, Steve.

    • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 6:56 AM | Permalink

      Their employment should be terminated. That’s the clear meaning. Joking about genocidal tendencies that are of your own imagining is not only not funny, it’s typical of where defenders of the climate orthodoxy are willing to go in their smearing of their enemies. Disgraceful.

    • Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

      It would be even better to disband the IPCC.

      Then the scientists can go back to doing their research and publish in the usual places.

      The IPCC was created to advance a prior i assumption.Hardly a valid way to do research.

      • Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 7:06 PM | Permalink

        sunsettommy writes: “It would be even better to disband the IPCC.

        Can’t but agree. “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root….

  73. Little Polyp
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 6:53 AM | Permalink

    Well done Steve. I admire your relentless pursuit of the truth.

    12 hours after this was identified we are still waiting for the pro cagw papers in australia to give it any coverage which just goes to show how ideologically tainted they are

    This has now gone beyond shameful. It is now a farce.

  74. Garry
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 7:49 AM | Permalink

    Happy to note that Mark Lynas has taken note of my response to Bob Ward that the Greenpeace “Energy [R]evolution scenario” was the basis for the IPCC report, and not any kind of “peer-reviewed journal.”

    Lynas states in his 11.20 GMT, 16 June update that “I am indebted to Garry in the comments below for spotting the fact that Greenpeace did make some play of the fact that ‘their’ scenario had been highlighted by the IPCC – despite the claim by many that the fact Teske et al, 2010 was published in a peer-reviewed journal meant it was no longer anything to do with Greenpeace.”

    He then quotes from the Greenpeace press release and includes the direct link to the press release itself, found on the Greenpeace “climateblueprint” site, here:

    http://www.energyblueprint.info/1327.0.html

    Blowing my own horn a little, yes, but I think it’s important that Ward’s bogus “peer-reviewed journal” meme be soundly and thoroughly thrashed, as Greenpeace and Sven Teske do in their very own May 9 press release.

    • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

      Re: Garry (Jun 16 07:49), Yes, this is an interesting find from Garry. The IPCC press release and the energyblueprint one are quite similar, both leading with Teske’s 80% claim, which in fact is buried quite deep in the full IPCC report. I wonder which was written first, and I wonder who wrote them? Who would have been aware of the 80% claim and thought it important enough to put in the first sentence of the IPCC press release?

  75. Les Johnson
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 8:11 AM | Permalink

    Steve: Any reason my post of Jun 15, 2011 at 5:23 PM is still in moderation purgatory? I am not being accusatory, just curious.

  76. EdeF
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 8:47 AM | Permalink

    Re: Geoff Sherrington

    “Of the claimed 130 GW of renewable 2008-9, we have to look at the massive 3 Gorges Dam scheme in China. “A total of 32 main power generators are planned, of which 12 sets on the right bank and 14 sets on the left were installed in 2006 and 2008 respectively. They were operational in October 2008 and generated a total of 18,300MW.” http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/ That 18,300 MW of course equals 18.3 GW, some of which was added in 2008-9.”

    Geoff, the hypocracy here from IPCC is breathtaking. Starting about 40 yrs ago the green movement started its campaign for removal of existing dams in the west citing a number of reasons including siltification, destruction of fish runs, etc. Now they trumpet two
    mega-dams in China and Venezuela for their RE props. There is something fishy about
    that 140 GW RE number, they must be counting ethanol production and plants that burn
    wood chips as well, both of which emit CO2.

  77. Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    Steve:

    Worth a look at this link.

    http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/service/kontakt/impressum.html

    *****************************
    Greenpeace Energy eG
    Schulterblatt 120, 20357 Hamburg

    Postfach 306337, 20329 Hamburg

    Tel: 040 / 808 110-300
    Fax: 040 / 808 110-333
    E-Mail: info(ät)greenpeace-energy.de

    Amtsgericht Hamburg GnR 1002, eingetragen 16.11.1999
    Vorstand: Dr. Steffen Welzmiller, Robert Werner
    Aufsichtsrat: Brigitte Behrens (Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende), Thomas Hauswaldt (stellv. Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender), Klaus-Dieter Hagen, Hubert Kneußel, Jörg Rohwedder, Sven Teske
    USt.-Id.Nr. DE206926103
    Steuer-Nr. 42/726/00053 Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark

    Bankverbindung: Bank für Sozialwirtschaft, BLZ 251 205 10, Kto. 8 457 501

    **************************

    Hope that helps.

  78. Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 11:18 AM | Permalink

    renewable energy, where do i start talking about this issue? has anyone thought that wireless devices have caused a huge increase in power demand around the world? we need to charge devices with solar power, it would make a huge contribution towards efficiency.

    • Mark F
      Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 11:48 AM | Permalink

      Let’s see. 6 watt-hours every 100 hours, or 0.06 watts average per device. USA, maybe 100 x 10^6
      devices, or 6 megawatts for ALL of the units. Oh, hell, let’s multiply by 10 and make it 60 megawatts
      of generating capacity (overnight, of course) needed. Um, a small town? You’ve been forgetting to wear your tinfoil hat.

    • Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM | Permalink

      Well, I wouldn’t have put it quite like MarkF, but,

      “we need to charge devices with solar power, it would make a huge contribution towards efficiency.”

      Any serious energy generating solar device, would probably take more energy to build than what you are proposing to use it for. Plus, the cost would exceed the savings.

      Anyone serious about providing cheap, reliable, and available electricity should be advocating Nuke, coal, and hydro. It isn’t as if we don’t have the resources or the know-how, we do. Solar is a long way away.

  79. Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 11:39 AM | Permalink

    Good digging, Steve.

    Keep up the pressure.

    Tip jar has been hit.

  80. LDLAS
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    Ecofys (Econcern) is well known for playing with figures.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econcern

  81. Richard S Courtney
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM | Permalink

    Steve:

    The basic information concerning IPCC Working Group 3 (WG3) is not news. I published a paper about it in 2001 (n.b. a decade ago).

    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 1) 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 concluding paragraphs of my paper said;

    “The Chapter states that, “Most generally, it is clear that mitigation scenarios and mitigation policies are strongly related to their baseline scenarios, but no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”. This statement is in the middle of the Chapter and is not included in the Chapter’s Conclusions. Failure to list this statement as a conclusion is strange because this statement is an admission that the assessed models do not provide useful predictions of effects of mitigation policies. How could the predictions be useful if the relationship between mitigation and baseline is not known?

    Also, the only valid baseline scenario is an extrapolation from current trends. The effect of an assumed change from current practice cannot be known if there is no known systematic relationship between mitigation and baseline scenario. But each of the scenarios is a claimed effect of changes from current practice. So, the TAR itself says the scenarios are meaningless gobbledygook.

    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

    • PaddikJ
      Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 8:00 PM | Permalink

      “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.”

      Jebus, not only is it not science, it’s not anything; just a bunch feel-good piffle that’s so nebulous it would make even a PoMo Sociology professor blush.

      My chin is bleeding from just hitting the floor.

  82. LDLAS
    Posted Jun 16, 2011 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    After Econcern went bankrupt, Ecofys was bought by green-energy firm Eneco,partner of the WWF and according to Greenpeace the cleanest energy-firm of the Netherlands.
    I love the connections.

  83. Jeff Norman
    Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 12:21 AM | Permalink

    IIRC there was a climate simulation issued in 1995 that while not explicitly stating an 80% contribution factor for renewable energy sources, did qualitatively suggest something on that order.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterworld

  84. barry
    Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

    From the comments here, one could get the impression that Teske was the primary author of Ch 10 WGIII. Steve refers to him in his post as “The lead author..” (emphasis mine). You could also get the impression that WGIII is a Greenpeace subsidiary.

    Teske is one of 9 authors working under two co-ordinating authors for Ch 10 WGIII. I looked up the others. None of them work for Greenpeace. Indeed, there is a broad spectrum of interests, ranging from theoretical, to representatives that have worked or are working in the nuclear and petroleum industries (Raymond Wright, for example.

    All the authors have extensive experience utterly germane to the issues discussed in Ch 10, and they have a range of interests. What’s the problem?

    The problem seems to be that a Greenpeace paper was given weight in Ch 10. Somehow this means that something is wrong with the IPCC. As the Chapters have to be signed off by the lead authors, industry and government reps, and goes through several stages of review before being cleared, this would mean that the IPCC process is a sham, and the organisation provides cover for tree-hugging groups like Greenpeace. However, I see no evidence that anyone has audited the Greenpeace paper backing this part of the report.

    The import of the above post, then, is political in nature. No number-crunching here. In the endless quest to impugn the IPCC, this is a pretty lazy effort. Misleading, even.

  85. Philip Shehan
    Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Some of Andrew Bolt’s readers suggested I post this here:

    This appeared in yesterdays Tips section in the form of a link to Watts, but disappeared during the day.

    I did not have to dig and dig to find the link to McIntyre as it was in Watts report. Watts has a habit of misrepresenting what is in the links, as he did last week with one to Clive Best which used the uncorrected rather than corrected graph and neglected to mention Best’s conclusion that the data was consistent with the IPCC projections because that was not the spin Watts was putting on it.

    Note that McIntyre does not dispute the accuracy of the submission. And indeed given the state of science and technology now and in 40 years time, the remark about ”political will”, in other words the cost people are prepared to bear (an entirely legitimate point) does not sound like such a very big call.

    McIntyre only complains about its “provenance”. Which is in fact a review article which does in fact include references to peer reviewed literature. and an article which is in fact peer. The paper by Teske et al which McIntyre also complains about is in a peer reviewed journal.

    There have indeed been complaints about the IPCC’s handling of non refereed material, which are a small minority of material in the IPCC report. The IPCC has already acknowledged this and has tightened the rules for the next report.

    Watts’ headline: A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC is another Watts beat up.

    The following is posted in reponse to Jo Nova’s hysterical headline on her blog:

    “Greenpeace-gate breaks and the IPCC is busted. The shock. (Could they really be this dumb?)”

    Steve McIntyre has not “discovered” anything. The paper was in a peer reviewed journal, the “Greenpeace employee” (Sven Teske) was one of six authors of the paper, and he is one of eleven chapter authors in the IPCC report. The idea that chapter authors must not have published anything in the area which they are responsible for providing a knowledgeable overview of the science is ridiculous.

  86. Richard
    Posted Jun 17, 2011 at 9:03 PM | Permalink

    “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.”

    Hi Steve, I agree with you both about the blunder and your opinion. But the point I want to make is not about the blunder of the IPCC.

    Its been a long time since I came here last.

    I was once censored by you for expressing a view about a tenth as mild as this one of yours. It seems things have come a long way since then.

  87. Posted Jun 18, 2011 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

    Ah, I see. Academic Freedom apparently means “make stuff up and present it as fact”. Got it. What’s next?

  88. EdeF
    Posted Jun 19, 2011 at 9:51 AM | Permalink

    “The scenario results suggest a strong dependence of the deployment of solar energy on the climate
    stabilization level, with significant growth expected in the median cases until 2030 and in particular
    until 2050 in the most ambitious climate stabilization scenarios. Breaking down the development by
    individual technology, it appears that solar PV deployment is most dependent on climate policies to
    reach significant deployment levels while CSP and even more so solar thermal heat deployment
    show a lower dependence on climate policies. However, this interpretation should be applied with
    care, because CSP electricity and solar thermal heat generation were reported by significantly fewer
    scenarios than solar PV electricity generation.
    The ranges of solar energy deployment at the global level are extremely large, also compared to
    other RE sources (see Section 10.2.2.5), indicating a very wide range of assumptions about the
    future development of solar technologies in the reviewed scenarios.”

    From the Chapter on Solar Energy. Solar energy deployment varies greatly, the main driver being gov’t involvement to reduce CO2 levels, and thus significant incentive packages
    and/or policies. I found the general description of solar energy to be very good, but
    its very light on the scenarios.

  89. barry
    Posted Jun 21, 2011 at 12:38 AM | Permalink

    “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.”

    Being a member of Greenpeace does not preclude having expertise on this subject, and the lead author list is balanced with reps from the petroleum and nuclear industry included.

    I think it would be foolish to bar authorship on IPCC chapters if any papers included in the assessment are co-authored by the lead authors, or to bar any papers written by WG lead authors. The example of millennial paleoclimate studies emphasises the paucity of this argument, as the expert list is very small. In the case of WGIII Ch 10, there is enough breadth of interests Teske had an inordinate amount of power for one of 9 main authors (coordinators included). That the Teske paper may have been given weight because of its intrinsic merit seems not to have occurred to you, Steve. Why not?

    “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.”

    Ok, are you able to draw up a counter-list of experts who would not have to excuse themselves under the provisions of your criticisms? If a condition has to be that anything they have published on the issue must not be considered, or that they may not be an author if they have advocated, then I think you may have trouble providing a reasonable panel.

    I’m assuming you are interested in criticism that is also constructive.

    • barry
      Posted Jun 21, 2011 at 2:41 AM | Permalink

      Sensitive touchpad.

      “In the case of WGIII Ch 10, there is enough breadth of interests Teske had an inordinate amount of power for one of 9 main authors”

      should be

      In the case of WGIII Ch 10, there is enough range of interests amongst the lead authors to neutralize bias. In order for the claim to fly, you have to postulate that Teske had an inordinate amount of power for one of 9 main authors (coordinators included). That the Teske paper may have been given weight because of its intrinsic merit seems not to have occurred to you, Steve. Why not?

  90. Adrian O
    Posted Jun 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    snip – too much editorializing

  91. Noesis
    Posted Jun 22, 2011 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    I don’t understand. The guy who wrote the best-case scenario is a proponent of trying to achieve the best case scenario? Shocking. Is the regular audience of climate audience so stupid they can’t see past McIntire’s rabble-rousing flamebait? Of course the IPCC is going to employ people who believe in renewable energy to write the best case, and people who don’t to write the worst case.

    But no, because McIntire doesn’t like one person who worked on the paper, they should all be fired. And, of course, McIntyre is entirely dispassionate in this demand, it’s not like he has taken a public position on climate change and is being entirely hypocritical by demanding people he disagrees with be fired for fake political reasons.

  92. Posted Jun 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    As described in my recent article on Renewable Energy (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/articles-business/37782):

    The IPCC’s claim as to the world’s ability to replace most of the fossil fuel energy with renewable sources by the mid-century is nothing but a hollow statement based on wishful thinking. The latter, of course, stems from a complete lack of understanding of the effect of CO2 on the world’s climate, which is derived from models that do not even consider the effect of the world’s main climate control mechanism, namely the energy transfer between water in solid, liquid and gaseous forms.

    The IPCC’s assertion about renewable energy is yet another example of faulty science and grossly misleading statements that the world is slowly learning to disregard.

  93. manicbeancounter
    Posted Jul 27, 2011 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    I have taken a look at the Table 10.3. The figures say that this 77% of energy from renewables by 2050 can be achieved with zero impact on either global economic growth (measured in GDP per capita at purchasing power parity) or on population growth compared with the “do nothing” baseline. That is average growth of 2.1% per annum from 2007 to 2030, and then 1.7% through to 2050. By 2050, world population is projected to grow from 6.67 to 9.15 billion. However, choose the wrong set of policies and the forecast is remarkably different. Under the Category I+II scenario, the global economy shrinks by 0.5% per annum to 2030. In 2050 there are 330 million less people and they are on average 43% worse off then the baseline scenario. A minor part of this policy failure is that only 31% of energy production is from renewables.
    I would suggest that the policy is based on a knife-edge. Get it right and you get utopia. Get it fractionally wrong and we’re all doomed.

    Please checkout the notorious table 10.3 from the IPCC’s website. It is on page 1187 of the full report pdf, or page 32 of Chapter 10.

    http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report

    I examine in more detail at

    http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/ipcc-on-the-knife-edge-renewables-scenarios/

  94. Posted Aug 23, 2011 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    In Canada the Pembina Institute is tackling the issues of renewable — here is a short note on their latest project…

    See this report they commissioned… Page 63 (Labeled page 51 — the third point of the conclusions…

    http://www.opg.com/power/thermal/Pembina%20Biomass%20Sustainability%20Analysis%20Final%20Rev%2015%20April%202011.pdf

    In Ontario, there is a sustainable long-term flow of 2.9M ODT at existing harvest rates in the Boreal and GLSL forest regions (Figure 44). Further, an additional but declining tonnage of biomass is available in the short term (2015 to 2060), at harvest rates of 20.1 Mm3/year (Figure 59).

    How thoughtful — the Pembina Institute of Alberta seems to be recommending that we burn our Boreal Forest for Electricitry supply….

    See appendix A…

    Purpose:
    To convene a small group of experts (~8 people) to support the direction, development and provide input on key issues related to sustainability analysis of electricity generation using renewable biomass for the four coal power plants in Ontario (Atikokan, Thunder Bay, Lambton and Nanticoke).

    Bottom line? Let’s convert the old coal plants to burn the Boreal (Northern Conifer) forest.

    What the heck — why not. Is this more ecologically sound than burning coal say?

  95. Manfred
    Posted Feb 7, 2012 at 10:19 PM | Permalink

    Fritz Vahrenholt is currently in the German press, as he wrote a climate sceptic book.

    In this BBC (!) interview, he reports to have been an IPCC expert reviewer for the renewables report, and that the Greenpeace representative redacted the final version. He also says, the report swarmed with mistakes.

    http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fwissenschaft%2Fumwelt%2Farticle13853684%2FGeht-die-Klimakatastrophe-an-der-Erde-vorbei.html

    • Manfred
      Posted Feb 7, 2012 at 11:27 PM | Permalink

      It was an interview in the German newspaper “Welt”, not the BBC, Google translates Welt (world) into BBC.

  96. agwisreal3000
    Posted Feb 3, 2014 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    “Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.”

    Hunh???

    If this type of draconian, over-the-top response should happen every time an organization exaggerated (they didn’t, but merely touted “the top end” of–AS THE AUTHOR NOTED) expected results of using their product/service/recommendations, the appropriate commensurate response in a commercial situation would be to hang and shoot every advertising agency employee and all CEOs and marketing employees of the companies that hire them.

    In an organization whose mission is to save the planet from the self centered, greedy and sociopathic, we should expect people who are passionate about their work–and certainly no big deal if it leads to a bit of exaggeration, if indeed that is what it is.

    In this case, such idealistic IPCC policy recommendations will never happen because our governments are so corrupted by Big Oil. It is Big, Destructive Oil you should be focusing your attention on. They are the sociopathic organizations responsible for climatic destruction and rampant pollution, including global warming. Their rewards are extremely lucrative compared with any the IPCC gleans. Follow the BIG money to find BIG CORRUPTION.

    The outrage here on this blog is so totally misplaced, it’s a grotesquely misshapen parody of do-gooderism!! Just laughable. And crazily paranoid, for reasons I cannot fathom since they nevhopefully in the 20 or so years since this was posted, most of those reading have gained a measure of common sense and sanity.

    Hopefully in the 2 or so years since this was posted, most of those reading have gained a measure of common sense and sanity.

    • MrPete
      Posted Feb 4, 2014 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

      Re: agwisreal3000 (Feb 3 16:49),
      What you fail to realize is that this blog — and supposedly the IPCC — is about science, not politics nor entertainment.

      Exaggeration has no place in science. Period. And this post isn’t just about exaggeration. The paragraph before your quote:

      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.

74 Trackbacks

  1. […] […]

  2. […] zingt: 'Gree-e-e-een, green green green'(Peace)Opnieuw is het de alerte blogosfeer, in de vorm van de onverslaanbare Steve McIntyre die moet vaststellen dat het IPCC, ondanks alle loze beloften en de aanbevelingen van IAC onder […]

  3. By Greenpeace-Karaoke beim IPCC | on Jun 15, 2011 at 4:33 AM

    […] des Umweltlobbyismus von Umweltschutz-NGOs, wie Steven McIntyres  (Climate Audit) Quellenanalyse der jüngsten Szenarien zum weltweiten Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energieträger belegt. Seiner Recherche nach sind Greenpeace-Szenarien die Grundlage des vom IPCC jüngst […]

  4. […] it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science […]

  5. By The Climate Change Debate Thread - Page 756 on Jun 15, 2011 at 5:36 AM

    […] […]

  6. […] Hotter Planet, is not only disturbed by the IPCC’s latest bungle, he’s paying credit to Steve McIntyre for picking up on […]

  7. By Repairing the IPCC’s Image on Jun 15, 2011 at 9:41 AM

    […] Via Steve McIntyre […]

  8. […] McIntyre’s analysis shows the deep involvement of an activist from Greenpeace International in writing an important chapter that ends up focusing on a scenario for energy technologies developed by none other than Greenpeace. It’s hard to find fault with McIntyre’s overarching conclusion about the report and the panel’s Working Group 3 (WG3 below), which is tasked with charting possible responses to climate change: The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario. [Read the rest.] […]

  9. […] On ClimateAudit: IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke […]

  10. […] the release of the full report on June 14th, Steve McIntyre noticed that the 77% renewables by 2050 scenario was in fact based on work by a Greenpeace campaigner named […]

  11. […] the whole enchilada is now available and, as Steve McIntyre explains, there’s a good reason why the IPCC might not have wanted anyone to look too closely at the […]

  12. […] McIntyre identifizierte Greenpeace als Quelle des IPCC-Reports zu „Erneuerbaren Energien“: IPCC Special Report on […]

  13. […] the whole enchilada is now available and, as Steve McIntyre explains, there’s a good reason why the IPCC might not have wanted anyone to look too closely at the full […]

  14. By Congratulations to Greenpeace | Lenz Blog on Jun 15, 2011 at 6:31 PM

    […] However, someone did notice. […]

  15. By Off With Their ‘eads! « The Policy Lass on Jun 15, 2011 at 6:33 PM

    […] has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate […]

  16. By Top Posts — WordPress.com on Jun 15, 2011 at 7:03 PM

    […] IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke On May 9, 2011, the IPCC announced: Close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by […] […]

  17. […] Steve Mcintyre (notable escéptico): IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke. […]

  18. […] Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here. […]

  19. By IPCC = Greenpeace ? on Jun 16, 2011 at 2:27 AM

    […] […]

  20. […] Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here. […]

  21. […] Climate Audit: IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke […]

  22. […] McIntyre has again identified that the UN IPCC is making things up, and publishing them as “facts” when there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. […]

  23. […] Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here. […]

  24. […] e expôs mais uma fraude do I.P.C.C.: o sumário para decisores políticos desse comunicado é decalcado de um documento da Greenpeace e do lobby europeu das renováveis. Agora, via Bishop Hill, sabemos que este lobby específico,o EREC, composto por várias empresas […]

  25. […] Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here. […]

  26. […] been to circle the wagons and cry foul? That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been […]

  27. By Containing the UN | on Jun 17, 2011 at 6:17 AM

    […] it be like for the UN, asks Les Routledge,  if “the Kyoto objecting countries withheld their UN fees until the IPCC was […]

  28. By IPCC up to its old tricks? « Newsbeat1 on Jun 17, 2011 at 6:23 AM

    […] Steve McIntyre […]

  29. […] cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves? That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have […]

  30. […] IPCC report, first published just over a month ago, has attracted criticism this week from climate change sceptics, who have complained that a scientist from Greenpeace was one of more than 120 authors of the […]

  31. […] report has already received some significant criticism but since it is useful to know how one can grow renewable energy to that level, that fast, I did […]

  32. […] to the first: Steve McIntyre, the proprietor of the Climate Audit blog, looked into the IPCC renewables study that […]

  33. […] a narrow industrial sector and serving a particular political agenda.En dan deze quote uit de analyse van Steve McIntyre die alles aan het rollen bracht:Steve McIntyre discovered the issue and writes this conclusion:It […]

  34. By The invisible battle on Jun 17, 2011 at 3:23 PM

    […] cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves? That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have […]

  35. […] IPCC report, first published just over a month ago, has attracted criticism this week from climate change sceptics, who have complained that a scientist from Greenpeace was one of more than 120 authors of the […]

  36. […] kunde ske genom ”förnyelsebar” energi år 2050.  Den 14 juni släpptes själva rapporten. McIntyre har läst den och kunde konstatera att bland huvudförfattaren fanns en representant för […]

  37. By Of Dogs and Fleas « The Policy Lass on Jun 17, 2011 at 9:36 PM

    […] cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves? That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively […]

  38. […] This is an important statement and appearing in the IPCC report it carries an air of authority. However, it has come to light that the lead author of chapter 10 of the IPCC report (ER-2010) was a Greenpeace employee not identified in the report or press release. (Greenpeace is a $200 million euro per year environmental activist organization.) In addition, the same Greenpeace activist was a lead author of the IPCC report. In effect, this activist  was able to review  and reach conclusions on his own science which then was written in the IPCC report. This is far from accepted peer-review behavior and simply renders the IPCC statements as not credible. Click here for the background and discovery.  More here as well. […]

  39. […] applauding Steve McIntyre’s discovery of the latest embarrassment from the IPCC, Mark comments: “McIntyre and I have formed an […]

  40. By The IPCC is a joke | climatenonconformist on Jun 18, 2011 at 9:38 PM

    […] Steve McIntyre has revealed how an IPCC report on renewable energy had been written and reviewed by a Greenpeace activist. The report claimed that “80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century”. For one, this was the most optimistic of 164 scenarios and it assumed decreased energy demand. The lead author of the chapter in question is Sven Teske who is a campainer for Greenpeace. A more damning conflict of interest could not be considered. Once again, the world iss indebted to Steve McIntyre for his tireless and unpaid work in keeping the alarmists and the IPCC honest. And the IPCC gets a Nobel Peace Prize? It ain’t right. […]

  41. By IPCC caught out again on Jun 19, 2011 at 6:28 AM

    […] Steve McIntyre shows here that the IPCC report is far from an honest scientific report, rather the product of bias and vested […]

  42. […] tidigare uppdagat FN:s fusk med den så kallade hockeyklubban och fifflandet med temperaturdata, nu avslöjat att författaren till rapporten, Sven Teske, är anställd av tyska Greenpeace. Teske tog fram […]

  43. By A Report Too Far | Digging in the Clay on Jun 19, 2011 at 11:38 AM

    […] by Steve McIntyre uncovered some important background on the authorship of the report […]

  44. […] Those are strong words from Steve. Read his entire report here. […]

  45. By Riciclaggio ideologico | Climate Monitor on Jun 20, 2011 at 2:01 AM

    […] così, grazie al solito Steve McIntyre, apprendiamo che la promettente frase “Le risorse rinnovabili potranno coprire il fabbisogno […]

  46. By Why should we trust them? « blogpackinglight on Jun 20, 2011 at 3:46 AM

    […] standards than he sees it holding itself, picked up all these IPCC/Greenpeace connections and posted on them angrily, calling for all involved to be sacked. “As a citizen,” he says, “I would like to know how […]

  47. […] ma esclusivamente di natura politica: in parole povere, soldi e buona volontà. Qualcuno ha voluto vederci più chiaro, e ha scoperto che l’IPCC aveva prodotto ben 164 scenari possibili, e che ha poi scelto quello […]

  48. […] ma esclusivamente di natura politica: in parole povere, soldi e buona volontà. Qualcuno ha voluto vederci più chiaro, e ha scoperto che l’IPCC aveva prodotto ben 164 scenari possibili, e che ha poi scelto quello […]

  49. […] ma esclusivamente di natura politica: in parole povere, soldi e buona volontà. Qualcuno ha voluto vederci più chiaro, e ha scoperto che l’IPCC aveva prodotto ben 164 scenari possibili, e che ha poi scelto quello […]

  50. […] increase of 2 billion and GDP per capita more than doubling. Second, the scenario assumes no deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology and a phase out of nuclear power by 204… with no new nuclear plants built after 2008. Third, to attain the results, the scenario must rely […]

  51. […] Greenpeace International’s Sven Teske digging himself in even deeper following criticisms from Steve McIntyre – later added to by myself – that too much weight was given in the recent IPCC’s […]

  52. […] came the revelation, uncovered by Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit, that the IPCC renewables report published in full last week had given prominence […]

  53. […] (1) http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/ (2) http://community.zeit.de/user/schneefan/beitrag/2009/11/21/cruklimawissenschaftler-gehackt-ipccschwindel-weltweit-entlarvt […]

  54. By McManufactured Controversy on Jun 22, 2011 at 2:00 AM

    […] climate auditor Steve McIntyre has managed to manufacture a controversy out of the recently-published IPCC Report on Renewable Energy (SRREN), based on the simple […]

  55. […] climate auditor Steve McIntyre has managed to manufacture a controversy out of the recently-published IPCC Report on Renewable Energy (SRREN), based on the simple […]

  56. […] aus einem Internetartikel bezieht – geschrieben vom bekannten kanadischen IPCC Gegner und Klima-Skeptiker Steve McIntyre. Angegriffen wird das vom IPCC erwähnte Weltenergieszenario “Energy [R]evolution”, […]

  57. […] came the revelation, uncovered by Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit, that the IPCC renewables report published in full last week had given prominence […]

  58. By It’s weather, alright… | pindanpost on Jun 22, 2011 at 8:09 AM

    […] IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke […]

  59. […] Audit discovered that this prediction was based off of research conducted by Sven Teske, the Director of the Renewable Energy Campaign for Greenpeace. In other words, the supposedly impartial IPCC was using a paid employee of Greenpeace to give a […]

  60. […] Audit discovered that this prediction was based off of research conducted by Sven Teske, the Director of the Renewable Energy Campaign for Greenpeace. In other words, the supposedly impartial IPCC was using a paid employee of Greenpeace to give a […]

  61. […] IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke (climateaudit.org) […]

  62. […] all seems a little farfetched, doesn’t it. But read Nature’s editorial and re-read the original CA post on the matter (and […]

  63. […] increase of 2 billion and GDP per capita more than doubling. Second, the scenario assumes no deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technology and a phase out of nuclear power by 204… with no new nuclear plants built after 2008. Third, to attain the results, the scenario must rely […]

  64. […] came the revelation, uncovered by Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit, that the IPCC renewables report published in full last week had given […]

  65. […] just read through Steve McIntyre’s posting on the report. Unusually for him, he concentrates on the provenance of the report and not on […]

  66. […] qu’aurait on entendu ! ». Lynas s’est associé à un pool d’habituels sceptiques (dont Steve Mc Intyre, qui a débusqué ce fameux lièvre) pour réclamer des explications. Lesquelles figurent sur son post original mais ne répondent pas […]

  67. […] here and here. This criticism has attracted favorable coverage from (on the surface) unlikely quarters […]

  68. […] IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke […]

  69. […] noticed that another of its lead authors, Sven Teske, is a longtime Greenpeace employee (see here, here, here, here, and here). Along with 12 others, Teske wrote the chapter titled Mitigation Potential […]

  70. By An opening mind. Part II | Climate Etc. on Sep 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

    […] cry foul against the whistle-blowers themselves? That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have […]

  71. By An opening mind | Climate Etc. on Sep 28, 2012 at 11:49 AM

    […] suspect that many readers of this blog have already seen Steve McIntyre’s post “IPCC and the Greenpeace Karaoke” that identified Greenpeace as the source of a key […]

  72. […] […]

  73. […] thing started with a press release announcing a notorious “80%” figure the trail of which led Steve McIntyre to a Greenpeace-authored […]

  74. By XI | My Opera Files on Mar 2, 2014 at 7:40 PM

    […] WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke “I, for one, was keenly interested in how IPCC got to its potential 80%. Unfortunately, in […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,379 other followers

%d bloggers like this: