IPCC Lead Author and the Nazca Vandalism

nazca linesIPCC Lead Author Sven Teske, as alertly observed by Shub Niggurath, was one of the leaders of the vandalism of the Nazca lines during the recent Lima conference.

Several years ago, I had criticized Teske in his role as IPCC Lead Author, a criticism also taken up by Mark Lynas.

Like the Nazca vandalism, Teske, a Greenpeace employee and activist, had promoted the Greenpeace scenario in the IPCC special report on renewables. Teske had been Lead Author of the chapter responsible for critical assessment of the feasibility of the Greenpeace renewables scenario – an assessment that was not carried out in the chapter or report, despite expectations of policy-makers and the public.

The Greenpeace scenario was then equally uncritically promoted in the IPCC press release, from which the following statement was widely distributed:

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.

WG3 Co-Chair Ottmar Edenhofer defended Teske at the time as having been nominated by the German Government:

Sven Teske was nominated as an author by the German government and selected by the WGIII as Lead author in the IPCC’s continuous effort to draw on the full range of expertise, and this includes NGOs and business as well as academia.


  1. John M
    Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    Was Teske at the Nazca vandalism too or just the Machu Picchu desecration? (Not that that wasn’t bad enough.)

  2. Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 11:14 AM | Permalink


    I was a speaker this year at the [next] conference put on by a group called TTI Vanguard. This conference brings together thought leaders and senior corporate executives from around the world related to advanced technology and other topics of concern and or interest to senior thought leaders. One of the presentations was by…

    MICHAEL D. MASTRANDREA, Co-Director, Science, IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit
    Topic: Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change

    The presentation about risk is a means whereby the IPCC coerces corporations to go along with AGW solutions developed by the IPCC as corporate executives have a duty of care, which is exploited to force corporate adoption of IPCC approved policies.

    They went through the energy scenario and I challenged them, which is encouraged under the format of the conference. I did not challenge them about CO2 or anything like that, but what I challenged them about is the lack of representation of the engineering community in their deliberations. The premise of my challenge is that what they consider renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are actually not renewable in an oil poor world and that nuclear is the only solution for maintaining and expanding our civilization.

    Their responses were very weak, about IPCC working group III and its representation by science, social scientists and the like. I reiterated that by not bringing the engineering community in, and by ignoring or only giving lip service to non hydrocarbon energy sources like nuclear that they are creating far more risk than what they are attempting to address with their scenarios. There was no answer from the presenters and everyone in the room knew it.

    • dfhunter
      Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

      Thanks for the info/link Dennis

      not to be cheeky, but how did you get involved in these talks ?

      the premise for these talks seems sound, but wonder who TTI decide to invite or can anyone join ?

      • Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

        I was an invited speaker due to our project this year to save the ISEE-3 Spacecraft…

        • dfhunter
          Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

          ok, thanks for the feedback/answer Dennis

        • kim
          Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

          From wings of an old bird fly thoughts of new gander,
          Nuclear throbs through the room’s silent leader.

      • Baz
        Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 2:54 AM | Permalink

        What exactly, are “thought leaders”?

        • harkin
          Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

          Not sure in this instance but I saw “thought leaders” at the Occupy trash convergence. They were the ones herding the useful idiots (attendees) with the bullhorns. They were also the ones who started shouting “Mic check!” repeatedly any time someone asked a relevant (aka inconvenient) question.

        • schitzree
          Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

          A ‘Thought Leader’ is someone who tells you what to think.

          Pretty self-explanation, really 😉

        • Duster
          Posted Dec 30, 2014 at 3:27 AM | Permalink

          Nah. They are just folks who thought they were leaders. Mostly, they are mistaken.

    • John Archer
      Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

      Some might consider what follows off topic but I don’t agree.

      But first to be clear: DennisWingo, none of this is directed at you.

      If anyone were introduced to me as a ‘thought leader‘—can you believe this appalling notion and what it implies?—I know that all my natural instincts would be pushing me to inflict great violence on him and put an end to his doings.

      At the very least I’d be sure to rip into the very idea, possibly in the hope that matters might then escalate into an all-out physical confrontation as I find I have such a visceral reaction to it.

      Good God! You’d have to build a whole new railroad just to ship the hubris involved around.

      I’m assuming of course that the target of such ‘praise’ accepted the moniker. On the other hand if he immediately turned on the introducer and berated him for it then, very much to the contrary, he would instantly gain my undying admiration.

      Thought leadership‘ is the very last thing we need. In any case, unfortunately these days we appear to have already contracted this deadly form of societal necrosis in almost every important sphere of life. Just look at the damage it’s doing. The IPCC, and indeed most governments, are prime examples.

      Is anyone else here incensed by this knuckle-dragging, bone-headed, pre-civilisational notion or is it just me?

      I say slay this priestly beast wherever it raises its head.

      • Posted Dec 25, 2014 at 12:37 AM | Permalink

        I feel that this is an improper characterization of the phrase. In my case the thought put forward is that with the advance in technology that has been accomplished in the last several years, projects such as ours, which was to reactivate a 36 year old spacecraft in interplanetary space with software defined radios and modern software is mean to provoke thought on what else can be accomplished.

        The vast majority of the TTI Vanguard speakers were talking about their newest work, from advanced gyrostabilized quadcopters with imaging systems, amazing image and video processing technology from Google, to the latest advances in artificial intelligence and cyber security. Absolutely none of these presenters were telling anyone how to think or what to think but their presentations were designed to provide information and provoke discussion and further progress. The format was open, and you could interrupt the presenter at any point of the presentation with a question or comment. The dinners and lunches were designed to bring people together to talk in more detail about their work as well.

        Yes some IPCC people were there putting forth their ideas, but they were roundly challenged and I myself made a couple of points that basically stumped them, which is that unless the engineering and engineering sciences communities are part of the process that the IPCC is using, specifically IPCC working group III, there is no possibility of a positive outcome.

        The TTI Vanguard group, that I knew nothing about, does bring people together and the people attending are for the most part senior executives and decision makers from several different walks of life.

        I strongly feel that a part of our problem in the climate skeptical community is that we are not challenging them enough. Steve, Anthony, Chris Monknton, and others are challenging them on the climate science side but very few are challenging them on the other side of the equation, which are their solution sets. I have been doing this longer than just about any of you, and so have some of my mentors like Gerard K. O’Neill

        Without bringing people like this together to meet in large communities the IPCC and others remain unchallenged, and there is a lot more going on here than what Steve M can ever address. He does a wonderful job evicerating flawed science. We do our part to evicerate the flawed solutions and to present a positive future and a means to get to that positive future, one where 9 billion people are not living barely above poverty, but are part of a global civilization taking its first steps toward the stars.

        In order to defeat the mindset that is the movement of AGW politically we MUST present an alternative to the doom and gloom scenarios. That requires LEADING in thought, in engineering, in politics, and in philosophy.

        Otherwise you cede the field to the destroyers and the doomsayers.

        • scf
          Posted Dec 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

          I think they were referring to the phrase “thought-leader” which is just the latest in corporate-speak. To me the phrase is nauseating like most other useless corporate speak. It’s the most ridiculous and pretentious thing to say. You don’t lead someone in thought unless you’re into brainwashing or neurosurgery. You lead someone in an activity such as engineering, politics and philosophy. Part of this leadership is sharing your thoughts, but the idea that you can lead someone else’s thoughts is absurd and assumes that others are zombies.

        • Posted Dec 25, 2014 at 5:21 PM | Permalink

          Everyone is entitled to their opinions. It is my opinion, in this instance, that you are wrong. I can see how people can do this and it has probably been used in this manner before.

          I don’t take offense as I know what my meaning is and the people that I interact with.

          May your holiday be bright and remember that we have a long way to go to change the thought patterns of those in political power. This is where Steve, Ross, and Anthony should one day get a Nobel prize for using truth to pierce the curtains of the misinformation that is the consensus of climate discussion today.

  3. Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    Reblogged this on JunkScience.com.

  4. mpainter
    Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    This is something that the general public can understand- vandalizing the famous Nazca site. They might not be able to recover from this; desertion by the Greenpeace rank and file, etc.
    That Teske is now a symbol of GP irresponsibility.

    Greg Laden’s condemnation of Greenpeace is remarkable (see the link S. Mc. provided.)

    • Rob
      Posted Dec 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

      Sadly, I doubt there will be any long-lasting fallout on Greenpeace from this. They seem pretty teflon-like in most places. This is far from the worst stunt they have pulled in the past and they have survived so far.

  5. Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    Think about the outrage if somebody with clear oil industry connections would have be lead author. Think about the silence about Teske. Noble cause corruption, again.

    • kim
      Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

      There has become a corrupt cause nobility.

    • AJ
      Posted Dec 24, 2014 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

      Aren’t noble unintended consequences exempt from the law?

    • Posted Dec 25, 2014 at 2:34 AM | Permalink

      Hans Erren,
      “Think about the outrage if somebody with clear oil industry connections would have be lead author.”

      How about
      “KHESHGI, Haroon, ExxonMobil Corporate Strategic Research, USA”
      Lead Author, Chapter 6

      No outrage.

      • Hoi Polloi
        Posted Dec 25, 2014 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

        Big Oil’s influence dwarves compered by the influence of Greenpeace (ánd WWF) in IPCC. You might read this, Mr.Stokes… : http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace

        Mr Teske was also one of the authors of the chapter of the IPCC report that looked at those 164 scenarios, and that chose Energy [R]evolution as one of four scenarios to explore in more detail. That, say critics, looks like a fix. And one with big consequences. That one scenario’s claim that the world could get call-it-80% of its energy from renewables managed, thanks to the press release, to shape perceptions of the report when it was originally released, making it look like a piece of renewables boosterism. Worse: who wrote the foreword to Greenpeace’s glossy publication of its scenario? Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the IPCC. (Disclosure: at the request of IPCC authors, this avatar of Babbage chaired a debate on the summary of the special report when it was launched in May, and his brother is a “co-ordinating lead author” on the panel’s forthcoming “fifth assessment report”, though not in an area associated with renewable energy.)

        Denying it’s (GP and WWF) influence on IPCC is either very naíve or worse…

  6. j ferguson
    Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM | Permalink

    “thought leader”?

    • TG
      Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

      That’s just a Tweeter meme…

  7. Gail Combs
    Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

    I did a quick and dirty look at the level of civilization we would have without nuclear or coal and oil. (Hydro is out because of things like the delta smelt) As far as I can tell reducing CO2 output by 83% puts us back to before 1800.

    The U.S. in 1800 had a per-capita energy consumption of about 90 million Btu.

    Click to access 12-PP-Nov2010.pdf

    Now the average for the USA is 335.9 million BTUs per person. http://www.nuicc.info/?page_id=1467
    Reducing that by 83% gives you 57.1 million BTUs per person almost 1/2 what was used in 1800.

    That is no factories, no metal tools, 90% of the people involved in subsistence agriculture. Not enough biomass or food production to provide heat and food for the present population so you are looking at a massive die off.

    Forget wind turbines and solar panels the best you could do is old fashion cloth and wood windmills because windmills and solar panels do not produce enough stable electricity to replicate themselves much less provide extra energy for factories.

    • Joe Born
      Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 7:12 PM | Permalink

      Among the interesting content of Alex Epstein’s book, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” is the reaction of a mid-19th Century British economist to the fear then abroad that the world might run out of coal. It was clear that he considered the execrable smog and “dark Satanic mills” a small price to pay for the coal-provided benefits that many people then living remembered having lived without, just as most of this site’s denizens remember living without the Internet.

      Although some of that book’s ideas could stand further fleshing out, it contains a fair amount of original thought, and I commend it to your attention.

    • thomaswfuller
      Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

      At the risk of flogging a dead horse, I believe you’re performing the wrong calculation. The reason this discussion is pertinent is not what happens if Americans use 85% less energy. It’s what happens when 9 billion people start using 336 million BTUs, as I forecast will happen around 2075.

      • Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

        As long as we adapt to using nuclear and electric cars, where is the problem? Too much good times ahead for us and the earth? Greenpeace should be shouting from the roof tops for nuclear.

        • Posted Dec 25, 2014 at 5:43 AM | Permalink

          Both James Hansen and James Lovelock are supporters of nuclear power and have been pilloried for it.

          For the majority of the climate community, humanity is a disease upon the Earth.

      • Pat Frank
        Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

        You express the 19th century horse manure concern, Thomas.

        • Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

          Yeah, we don’t have a clue what they’ll be flogging (and buying) in 2075. 🙂

        • Posted Dec 23, 2014 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

          Oh that rear-vision-mirror-hind-cast-forecasting-
          confirmation-bias that nobel-cause humanity’s oh so
          prone to.

    • Don Keiller
      Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 9:44 AM | Permalink

      Not many people either…
      Oh, I get it!

    • Duster
      Posted Dec 30, 2014 at 3:44 AM | Permalink

      Gail, Don’t blaim the smelt. They could be protected easily with a little engineering to exclude them from the canal intakes. Hyrdoelectric power has no effect on them at all, since the dams are at the other end of the catchments. The smelt were fine for decades (all the big hydro dams are decades old and all the smaller diversion dams, ditch and tunnel systems are even older. Hydro and smelt have no problems. What IS a problem is promises made by the Feds and the State to the southern state. That is the chief cause of problems in the delta, since the south has grown to meet and surpass the water supply. Huge numbers of L.A. realestate agents and developers have been sobbing in the halls of the capitol about the end to growth in the south. They NEED that water or a different job. They can’t ask for more Colorado River water and the courts have told them that even if L.A. got away with turning the Owens Valley into a desert, there were migratory birds that need Mono Lake, so the backside of the Sierra Nevada can no longer expand supply to the DWP.

      However, if you drive through the Delta you will see “Stop the Tunnels” signs every where. The folks who live are quite aware that the reason for the tunnels is to supply cheap water, requiring minimal treatment to L.A. and the southern San Joaquin desert (ah – Valley that is). Jerry plans to spend billions on those tunnels, which will benefit no one living in or north of the Delta and almost no one north of Fresno.

  8. Posted Dec 20, 2014 at 6:10 PM | Permalink

    US PBS coverage of the vandalism and damage. It includes drone photos of damage.

  9. Barclay E MacDonald
    Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    Dennis wingo:
    “The premise of my challenge is that what they consider renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are actually not renewable in an oil poor world…”

    I have completely missed that point! Thank you.

    Apologize for O/T

  10. Don Keiller
    Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    I do hope that Peru press for the extradition of Teske.

    • MikeN
      Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 12:22 AM | Permalink

      I wonder if they will explore the French option.

  11. Don B
    Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 9:55 AM | Permalink

    The Denver Post is usually sympathetic to global warming enthusiasts, but not on this.

    “Greenpeace did apologize, but in a tone-deaf fashion that defies belief. “We fully understand that this looks bad,” the group said.

    “Looks bad? No, the defacement of a major heritage site goes way beyond looking bad. It’s a cultural catastrophe.”


    • kim
      Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM | Permalink

      Greenpeace kicks sand in the face of the 97 percent weakling.

    • ColinD
      Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 9:01 PM | Permalink

      The Greenpeace apology is a case of it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

  12. Posted Dec 21, 2014 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    snip – please do not over-editorialize

  13. Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 1:42 AM | Permalink

    Renewables are the way of the future, just do it !!

    Like with all serious topics, the occasional diversion doesn’t go astray.

    So here is simple pollution solution . . . . .



  14. Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 9:43 AM | Permalink

    Kumi Naidoo egged by protesters outside Peruvian court.

    • Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

      Just noticed that Shub retweeted a link to this video yesterday.

  15. Keith
    Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 2:31 PM | Permalink


    THere seems to be a new hockey stick in marine sea surface temperatures.


    This looks like its crying out for a Climate Audit.

    Steve: many other people are interested in temperature data. I try to do things that are not otherwise covered and therefore tend to avoid the topic of temperature data. Parsing SST data is a big job.

  16. CaligulaJones
    Posted Dec 22, 2014 at 2:56 PM | Permalink

    Well, Greenpeace has good company with the WWF, if by good company you mean “idiots”.

    WWF complicit in tribal people’s abuse


    • scf
      Posted Dec 25, 2014 at 5:16 PM | Permalink

      I ruled out any future donations to WWF when I learned they were wasting money to save the polar bears (population over 20,000 and growing) when the population of mountain gorillas is 880, the population of cross river gorillas is about 200, and in fact there are hundreds of species like tigers, leopards, sea turtles, asian elephants and other unique animals that really need protection.

%d bloggers like this: