IPCC sexing up more “science” [updated]
The UN’s IPCC climate panel relies only on reliable, well-researched, peer-reviewed science. Oh, and wish-fulfilment fantasies from Greenpeace.
Yes, that’s right. Turns out the UN’s favourite climate lobbying organisation (that’s the IPCC, not Greenpeace) has once again been caught fudging its figures, drawing up dodgy data, and trying to hide its decline as a serious scientific clearing house.
This time, the IPCC has been caught with its pants down “bigging up renewable energy as the power source of the future” in a report that “turns out to have been lead-authored by an activist from Greenpeace .”
That’s virtually the leitmotif of scientific credibility wouldn’t you say?
And remember “renewable energy”? That’s the kind of apologetic energy production whose working definition is that it is “energy produced by means that would be uneconomic without govt. tax breaks and subsidies”—energy that is not so much renewable as it is unreliable.
No wonder it’s so popular with the anti-industrialists.
Picture from Jo Nova's blog.
UPDATE: There is No Conflict of Interest Policy for the IPCC’s next scare-story official report, out soon. And no conflicts of interest at all. Honest, guv. Physicist Lubos Motl summarises the laughable situation:
It turns out that [disgraced IPCC head Rajenda] Pachauri also wrote a preface for the Greenpeace document that was renamed as the IPCC document. Pachauri rejected any kind of policy against the conflict of interests for the 5th report: no surprise, the whole work of the IPCC and Pachauri himself is all about the conflict of interests.
The IPCC Press Release on renewables [claims] “close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century …” 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.