Comments on: Whitewashing IPCC Renewables: the Carbon Brief

By: Anthony Hanwell

Anthony Hanwell — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:58:39 +0000

Steve did you see a reference to you and this article in this weeks Economist? ( “A climate of conflict”)Ever so slightly I detect a shift by the Economist towards a more critical stance.

By: Get BackLinks Through Press Release – Free Back Links Resources

Get BackLinks Through Press Release – Free Back Links Resources — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:36:21 +0000

[...] Whitewashing IPCC Renewables: the Carbon Brief (climateaudit.org) [...]

By: Russell C

Russell C — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:30:13 +0000

And I hope you don’t mind if I pop in with regard to Mr Woods’ “Exxon” note. In my American Thinker article, I detail two IPCC participants who have also been part of the long-term fossil fuel funding smear of skeptic scientists – please see: “There is a Cancer Growing on the IPCC and Al Gore” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/there_is_a_cancer_growing_on_the_ipcc_and_al_gore.html

By: Ian_UK

Ian_UK — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:22:21 +0000

And in any case, pumped storage energy’s not free – just based on the differential between min/max tariffs.

By: Ian_UK

Ian_UK — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:18:41 +0000

The press clearly haven’t learned anything. In the UK, in the run-up to the Iraq debacle, the press headlined the “45 minute WMD readiness” claim in a government paper. The government knew the reporting was inaccurate but it was the journalists’s fault; it just happened to be convenient to let it go.

By: jorge kafkazar

jorge kafkazar — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:57:34 +0000

According to American Wind Energy Association, there IS a 100% (or maybe more than 100%) scenario in the report:

“100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Report.”

“Among the report’s points of emphasis: wind power alone is capable of supplying more than 100 percent of future demand.”

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/print/article/2011/05/100-percent-renewables-the-resources-are-there-says-un-report

By: David P

David P — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:40:13 +0000

Oh, please. Do you really believe the press release was distributed with that tortured interpretation in mind? You disprove yourself in making your own argument. If the release was speaking to “policy”-based possibilities, then why not use your %100 scenario? Why need a “study” at all?

By: Richard Drake

Richard Drake — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:14:58 +0000

AS if in response Leo Hickman goes irenic, as reported by Bishop Hill:

… the most positive contribution the more moderate climate sceptics (or “luke-warmers”, as they are sometimes described) such as McIntyre and Andrew Montford have brought to the debate is their dogged insistence that climate science must be transparent, open, fair and free from influence. I don’t think anyone could argue that this is not a worthy goal and, even if you disagree with their motivations, tone and methodologies, we will come to thank climate sceptics in years to come for forcing these obvious improvements.

By: Tilo Reber

Tilo Reber — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:58:44 +0000

The Carbon Brief doesn’t seem to be worth much of an effort. They received one comment on their article and that was from me, in opposition to their position.

By: John T

John T — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:53:55 +0000

“The press release contains a range of caveats…”

Pigs could fly if they had the right kind of wings.

In other words, nobody is willing to stand behind the validity of anything written in the press release. If nobody is willing to actually stand behind anything the press release says, then the press release and report itself is meaningless -its just a string of words that may or may not mean something.

Who’s paying these guys to publish stuff they admit may or may not mean anything???