Category: Climate Business

Paris covfefe

He’s done it. Donald Trump has taken the United States out of the Paris agreement.

Trump’s administration, perhaps predictably, employed the unfairness of Paris to pull out of the accord. But the question remains: is a fair Paris-like agreement possible? Or, even more fundamentally – should a Paris-like agreement be allowed at all?

Under Paris, if India or China built a coal power-plant, you wouldn’t hear ‘India adds power generation capacity, x million connected to the grid for the first time.’ Instead, the headlines would read: ‘India expected to fail meeting Paris target, expected to hit threshold for penalties soon.’

That would have been the real, disastrous legacy: an full-scale ethical inversion. Any positive would have been turned into a negative. That is the intended goal of the climate movement: an agreed-upon global constraint on energy use and a Malthusian corruption of the imperatives of modern life.

Dishearteningly, nearly everyone in the climate debate has fallen into the same rut. ‘Paris is a bad agreement because it won’t accomplish anything for the climate.’

Does this mean that a global arrangement that actually chokes off fossil fuel use enough to measurably impact climate would be a good one? Assuming the model calculations to be correct…?

For over two decades, developing countries hid securely behind the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ curtain. Post-Copenhagen, their own development was turned against them by the Obama administration under John Kerry and Todd Stern. With the toehold of not having to make any sacrifices in the present, India and China boldly auctioned off their economic independence at the altar of Paris. India would continue business-as-usual, gets loads of free money from the Green Climate Fund, and provide access to domestic ‘markets’ for solar power, ‘microgrids,’ and spread subsidy largesse around. In return, it would come under a measurement and verification regime in the not-too distant future.

The climate activists make no bones about it – controlling energy use in the developing world was the real prize.  This is Politico on the real ‘triumph’ of Paris:

The real triumph of Paris wasn’t America’s promises; it was the serious commitments from China, India and other developing nations that had previously insisted on their right to burn unlimited carbon until their economies caught up to the developed world.

The counter-argument from skeptically-minded lukewarmers, like Matt Ridley, was that this was terribly unfair to the poor in the developing world. Yes it would be, but the question remains: are the poor in India special? Compared to the poor in Scotland? or Pittsburgh?

Above all, ‘Paris’ was a testament to the vanity of international leaders at a particular moment in history – Obama, Cameron, Hollande and Modi.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement has called India and China’s bluff. It has reminded countries that to pursue self-interest is the best policy. Trump has reminded them not to chase mirages of ‘leadership’ at the ‘global stage.’ Milksops offered as bait to the vain will not feed the poor.

 

Advertisements

2C: ‘An ivory-tower view of life’

Oliver Geden‘s bold article on 2C in Nature continues in the line Richard Tol highlighted many months ago: the make-believe world of international climate negotiations is running headlong toward the terrain of the impossible.

As expected, scientivist and activist ‘communities’ wasted no time exploding in disbelief and Scientific American wasted no time collecting the reactions. Here is one of them:

Others, like Tom Burke, founding director of U.K.-based environmental group E3G, dismissed the Nature piece as “an ivory-tower view of life” that focuses on what is being said in academic literature rather than what is happening on the ground …

E3G is a climate activist organization founded by the physicist-turned-diplomat-turned-climate preacher John Ashton. (some of whose Yeats-influenced climate poetry can be seen here).

E3G celebrated its 10th anniversary in existence recently. Here are some pictures:

14640539664_99494c0f6d_k 14662595633_d1d956a18c_k

15337898971_3585eef525_k

Here are their sponsors…

donors

Here are their partners…

partners

Here is a full listing of sponsors:

  1. Climateworks  Foundation
  2. The Energy Foundation
  3. Greenpeace
  4. Avaaz
  5. DECC UK
  6. Planet Heritage Foundation
  7. DEFRA UK
  8. WWF
  9. EDF
  10. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
  11. ECF
  12. Kudos
  13. NRDC
  14. Germanwatch
  15. Stiftung Mercator
  16. Rockefeller Brothers Fund
  17. Shell Foundation
  18. Zennstrom Philanthropies
  19. The Climate Group
  20. Norden
  21. Climate Strategies
  22. Arcadia
  23. Barrow Cadbury Trust
  24. RAP
  25. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
  26. Ecofin Research Foundation
  27. IDDRI
  28. Doris Duke Foundation
  29. The Greens in the European Parliament
  30. Trust For London
  31. Foreign and Commonwealth Office UK
  32. Oak Foundation
  33. ADB
  34. Climate and Development Knowledge Network
  35. The European Commission

The mind reels at contemplating how Tom Burke of E3G could think anyone to be dwelling in ivory-towers. E3G produces no goods, provides no services and lives on donations – academics do much, much better.

Don’t underestimate E3G though – it has housed or churned out a steady stream of climate activists who are adept in applying pressure on individuals and countries. In their colourful brochures they take credit for everything from the Kyoto Protocol to banning coal-plants in the UK.

There you have it – 2C in a nutshell – people living ivory towers and rooftop champagne-party bubbles, fighting with each other to impose costs on the rest of the world.

Is there a force-field preventing countries from becoming ‘strong low-carbon economies’?

This post grew from reading Ruth Dixon‘s excellent posts on the relationship between CO2 emissions, national wealth and climate, one of which is on her ‘Dixon’s Diamond Law‘. Ruth is focused on a more climate-centred perspective; however, her first post carries a graph from the UNEP that is shown below (Figure 1):

Infographic - Bubble Chart - per Capita

Figure 1

From the above, the linear relationship between GDP and CO2 emissions (both per-capita and on a log scale) is immediately obvious. But can we learn anything more? That was my question.

The same graph is shown below from Gapminder (Figure 2), only simpler – each dot is a country.

straight-01

I drew an imaginary straight-line in dashes as shown. What is evident here (and in the UNEP graph) is that there are no countries in the wide area below and to the right of the imaginary line.

This is the space climate alarmists, the IPCC, Greenpeace, and now the latest in line, the Vatican want the world to be in. They would like to push as far to the bottom, and right, as possible – one where is wealth is intact and CO2 emissions per capita are low. Even any rightward push (i.e., increased wealth) is no absolute, the downward push (reduced CO2 emission) is paramount. They want to save the climate.

But you can go to Gapminder and examine the live version of the graph. The animation runs from 1960 to ~2011 and the invisible barrier should become well evident. Countries bounce along this parapet, pottering up and down or sideways but almost none cross it. There are no countries in the bottom-right area, say where $10,000 GDP/capita and 0.1 tonne CO2 meet (the spot marked ‘X’). Nor are any for miles in the wide swathes around it.

Clearly, this reflects some fundamental property. High wealth-for-low energy is a desirable target even for those unburdened by weighty climate concerns but this is simply not attained. The sheer emptiness of the region in the graph should give reason to pause, particularly to fantasy-prone and fretful physics professors. This is not a space where nations exist.

But, the picture above is not complete. What about the handful of countries close to and to the right of the dashed line at the top of the cloud of points? By re-plotting the graph with the x-axis (wealth) linear (Figure 3), the nature of the ‘invisible barrier’ and its exceptions become clearer:

bend-01

Figure 3. See text for ‘A’ and ‘B’ countries.

The ‘barrier’ now shown as a solid line has a vertical portion ‘A’. Countries are stacked one above the other, starting from very low CO2 emissions/capita of 0.04 ton up to ~2 ton. Then there is a horizontally oriented segment ‘B’ where countries are more variable in CO2 emissions (between 4 and ~12 ton/capita roughly).

Again, take a look at Gapminder’s live version. Countries climb up along A – their CO2 emissions/capita goes up but GDP doesn’t budge much. The stack moves through emissions more than two orders in magnitude without change in GDP. ‘A’ is acquisition of infrastructural capacity and sophistication and maturity of political forms. Crucially, ‘A’ is diffusion of the capacity to emit CO2 throughout the population.

After about ~2 ton, the ‘barrier’ starts yielding. There is growth in GDP without increase in CO2 emissions. Countries roughly between 4 – 10 ton break the rightward shift barrier: in ‘B’ there are substantial increases in wealth without increases in CO2 (Figure 4).

examples

Figure 4. India and China exemplify the ‘A’ stage where there is growth of CO2 emissions without much concomitant increase in GDP/capita. Portugal represents the transition from ‘A’ to ‘B’. Japan and the United States show significant increases in GDP along ‘B’ during 1960-2011 with their respective peak CO2 emissions occurring in the mid 1970s (at relatively higher levels compared to others, at 9 and 19 ton CO2, respectively)

Countries along ‘B’ are the the ones to the right of the dashed line in Figure 2. These are mainly European nations, the United States and Japan (Figure 5). Per-capita increases in wealth occur along B, only at the top-end of A. i.e, after attainment of a certain capacity to emit CO2. There are no exceptions.

Secondly, most ‘B’ countries employ significant nuclear power. Deployment of substantive nuclear power only occurs along the ‘B’ curve; with the exception of India and China, there are no countries in ‘A’ with substantial nuclear deployment.

europe

Figure 5. GDP trajectories from 1960 through 2011 for European countries is shown. The starting point for the data as evident in the country labels is quite variable. Nonetheless, the rough trend in Europe is along ‘B’ – increase in GDP without increases in CO2 particularly after the early 1980s (marked by red arrow). US is shown in yellow

Conclusion:

Analyzing national wealth and energy use is not straightforward. But surprisingly, there is a clear conclusion to be drawn—the low-carbon-high-wealth or even the low-carbon-moderate-wealth country does not exist. It has not existed to date. Dissociation between wealth and per-capita CO2 occurs only at the higher end of per-capita CO2. Importantly, contrary to portrayals of ‘decarbonization’ of economies as an universal good (Roger Pielke Jr), reduction, or more precisely a lack of increase in CO2 with GDP is possible only at the higher end of per-capita CO2. It appears one needs to go up in order to come down.

The Greenpeace ‘Archaeologist’

When the Nazca lines fiasco broke, Greenpeace’s response was to assure the world it worked with an archaeologist, taking every possible precaution:

Questions arose immediately:

Peru’s deputy Minister of Culture Luis Jaime Castillo went so far as to say the archaeologist was ‘the person you have to identify’

An archaeologist was identified in a New York Times report of the incident. It named Wolfgang Sadik, an ‘archaeologist-turned activist’ who we were told had ‘set aside his studies to work for Greenpeace’. The NYT relied on a Reuters video to relay how Sadik seemed to be directing ‘some of the other activists’. It quoted photographer Rodrigo Abd:

“The archaeologist explained where to walk and where not to walk,”… “There was a great concern not to even leave a mark of your shoes on the ground, and if a rock was moved put it back in its place.”

The article further quoted Wolfgang Neubauer of the University of Vienna who informed Sadik was his doctoral candidate and had ‘put off his studies to work with Greenpeace.’

This blog will show there’s more than what the New York Times let its readers in for.

Far from being a consultant archaeologist, Wolfgang Sadik is a committed long-time Greenpeace activist who has conducted several campaigns for the organization including some in leadership positions.

Sadik’s recorded Greenpeace activism appears to begin over a decade ago in 2003 when he appeared in Tuwaitha, Iraq near Baghdad as a ‘Greenpeace spokesman’. He was part of a 6-member Greenpeace team that measured radiation and radiation sickness at sites where looted material from the Tuwaitha nuclear facilities had made their way.

In 2007, Greenpeace planned for a symbolism-laden stunt at Mount Ararat near Turkey. Sadik was the leader. Battling skepticism within Greenpeace (‘too sentimental, too American, not serious enough’) Sadik pushed plans for building a boat-shaped ‘Noah’s ark’ structure on the slopes of the mountain to coincide with a G8 summit at Heiligendamm.

Greenpeace Ark – the brainchild of Wolfgang Sadik. (c) Norman Grant

In one respect, similarities between the Nazca stunt and Greenpeace’s Ark are striking. As the team ‘action coordinator’ he reasoned:

 The Ark was an available and widely-known symbol, so why not use it?

The ark project was successful in attracting month-long ‘international media attention’ (Greenpeace criterion for success); the source article reports Sadik thought the stunt ‘had had the biggest impact of any campaign Greenpeace had ever created in that part of the world’.

In the period afterward, Sadik appears to have shifted to archaeology, working with Wolfgang Neubauer on archaeological excavations in Hallstatt, Austria. A 46-page glitzy pamphlet produced in 2008 highlights his work on the site. It is not clear when he stopped in archaeology.

In February 2011 Sadik surfaced in Fukushima, Japan, once again measuring radiation levels. This time, Der Spiegel was laundering Sadik’s views as a ‘Greenpeace expert’ as it warned of a possible reactor meltdown. He was already back with Greenpeace earlier in the year: in January he was in a round-table discussion with host Reinhard Ueberhorst in his capacity as Greenpeace’s ‘Energy 2010 campaign manager’. Last year Sadik took part in another ark building projectArche2020‘ as ‘project coordinator’ from Greenpeace Germany.

From the above, it is evident Greenpeace performed little to no archaeological due diligence in planning their Nazca act. Instead of employing external and independent expertise, it went with what was available inside, using wrong advice from an activist member as cover for its actions. It is not known if other archaeologists were present in the Greenpeace team.

UPDATE: DGH (@Bioreducer) points out Sadik’s involvement with Greenpeace goes further back, with a 1997 report of a Greenpeace ‘Genetic Hazard Patrol’ chaining itself to a ‘tanker truck containing 35,000 litres of genetically engineered soya oil’ in Rotterdam, which likely included Sadik.

[minor edits]

Is Lima a failure?

One more conference of the parties has ended. As many before, it dragged on beyond the deadline. Richard Tol remarks this is a tactic employed by developed countries and those with bigger budgets. They can afford large delegate contingents who work in shifts, driving the small country one-man army delegates to drop off from exhaustion, boredom and sleep deprivation.

Presumably this makes decision-making in the UN system easier.

Press coverage has been along predictable lines. There is one aspect that goes unsaid: almost everyone notes how each of the COPs result in an utter failure. Christopher Booker notes for example how every conference throws up as a ‘breakthrough’,  ‘a meaningless document that commits no one to anything’.

However we need to be reminded – this is the best thing that can happen. It is a ‘failure’ for the UN climate mechanism sure but it is the world saved for another year. Any other outcome from these COPs would mean that some countries or all countries have taken on a binding agreement to ‘cut carbon’, in other words hurt themselves and their economies. ‘Failure’ for the climate activist fantasy bubble means success for the rest of us.

The setting up transnational energy budgeting regimes with carbon inspection and verification systems would be the final neomalthusian-Orwellian nightmare. It is appalling the US and other developed countries push for such measures. The US and UK may feel compelled by domestic politics to show they are able to extract promises from China, Brazil and India. But was it their original intention to be monitoring how much gas the average Chinese citizen fills up in his car? Western regulatory systems tend to be absolutist. Issues are tackled with rules, frameworks, discipline, enforceability and penalties. Applied to carbon, it paves the way for future wars.

The far more rational approach is pointed out by Nigel Lawson. Instead of punishing oneself with carbon restriction, and then pursuing imposition of such punishment in other countries by various means, Lima should serve as a opportunity to rethink such self-imposed burdens as the Climate Change Act in the UK, or the EPA-mandated carbon rules in the US.

Contrary to developing countries foolish imaginings developed countries need their economies maintained. It is not just comfort and luxury that costs energy. Good governance, strict regulation, clean environments, digging out of snow and staying warm in the cold costs energy too. The so-called developed economies have poor people as well. They walk, travel by train or bus, buy essentials at discount grocery stores and don’t own homes. As Raghuram Rajan identified in Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy , a developed economy with open markets brings prosperity to ten others.

The COPs are the annual ritualized destruction of climate activists harmful ‘hopes’. Let us work to keep them that way. The conferences are expensive, no doubt but think of them as tithe to be paid yearly to the gods of environmentalism. Emerson said ‘experienced men of the world know very well that it is best to pay scot and lot as they go along, and that a man often pays dear for a small frugality.’

 

[minor edits]

Biotech Biostitutes

Defamation

Brandon S has gone off on Mark Steyn with one of his posts. A while back, Brandon argued that Mann’s suspiciously SLAPP-like litigatory effort should go forward as judge for the case Frederick Weisberg ruled. Weisberg’s narrow focus involved determining whether Steyn’s writings were capable of being defamatory. He ruled ‘yes’ and set another court to determine whether they were defamatory. In other words, hair-splitting on a monumental scale. In normal minds separating the two would be next to impossible. Like showing someone a piece of red paper and asking: “Is this a colour?”

A.New.Fad

I noticed a new fad. It consists of writing short words and exclamatory sentences broken up into pieces by periods to convey outrage. Here it is in action at Tamino’s blog:

Yes.

 

 

All.

The long Tamino post begins with:

You might already have guessed that this post is not about science, or math, or climate change.

Just a while back, he began another post with:

Before you read further I’ll warn you that this is a rant which has nothing to do with climate science.

Tamino’s long post is on how all men are to be blamed for women feeling unsafe when alone outside at night etc.

David Appell shows examples of Tamino’s misogyny hypocrisy in the comments:

Aunt Judy

‘Aunt Judy’ refers to Judith Curry. In response, Tamino has a meltdown:

Let’s ask the women who are reading this. Women readers: would you feel safe enough with David Appell to confide in him?

Travel back in his blog and others and there are further examples:

Curry whoring her credentials

From Hotwhopper, a blog dedicated to fighting ‘sexism on the internet’
favours are flowing

Another one:

biostitute

Rest assured – these are not the only personal attacks on Curry of this nature. Recall the ‘hoe’ jokes on Katherine Hayhoe.

The headless chicken fallacy

Independent researcher Sami Paju writes why genetically ‘modified’ organisms pose ‘systemic risks’, i.e., creating random mutations and selling them as products could unleash monstrous harm.  His contentions are similar to the half-baked nonsense laid out by Rupert Read and Nassim Taleb, i.e., a hoary biological version of Pascal’s wager:

What we are doing with GMOs is effectively playing a lottery …

Paju admits the linchpin of his routine passes through the disseminative potential of global transport and industrialized agriculture, rather than any uniquely destructive capability of the mutants.

Taleb’s version is extended: what exists in nature is essentially stress-tested, what comes into existence new is capable of almost anything, including causing great harm. In the past, harmful genetic variants either killed everything around them or were eliminated. We see lots of things around us, meaning they survived previous murderous mutants. Meaning it was the mutants who were killed off. The style of self-contained nostrum is similar to circular explanations encountered in evolution.

Paju says biotechnology companies that create genetic variants carry little risk themselves but spread the risk of ecological collapse to entire populations. How different are well-settled, wealthy academic Nostradamuses broadcasting doom and catastrophe to everyday people?

Betting on catastrophe is the safest possible bet. The superstitious are drawn to it but the rich can afford it.

I do not wish to pay—or have my descendants pay—for errors by executives of Monsanto. We should exert the precautionary principle there …

Taleb rightly slams biotechnology business for claiming their products to be ‘tested’ and ‘safe’. However, ironically, in using such marketing language companies are responding to a toxic atmosphere of risk aversion perpetrated by people like Taleb.

IPCC science-government chimera

Richard Tol has an excellent synthesis of problems with the IPCC, particularly those connected to the structure of its peer-review system and government involvement. Tol offers solutions. The root cause however lies in historical evolution. Organizations like the IPCC were designed to amplify the cause of a group of committed individuals. Reviewers suborned to authors, science-government chimeras and back-propagated text changes are essential ingredients.

Activist scientists are foolish enough to believe they control the reports’ final text. They think they are trapping governments by letting them swirl fingers in the report and snapping the lids shut (Warning: link to Realclimate):

The SPM process also serves a very useful political purpose. Specifically, it allows the governments involved to feel as though they ‘own’ part of the report. This makes it very difficult to later turn around and dismiss it on the basis that it was all written by someone else.

Cat-and-mouse games with government may enthrall a section of IPCC scientists but it does little good for science. Tol documents how the environment departments of governments, poorly selected scientists, committed green activists and busybodies join hands to bring standards down, as only an insider can.

The Seralini Debacle

I love the Seralini debacle. It is instructional. A veritable horde is crying for the paper to be retracted. The reasons? It’s become ‘a paper’, it has been published, it will be ‘used’ by activists, it will mislead people. Oh, the horror!

These are the same people (such luminaries as Keith Kloor and Mark Lynas) who look the other way when papers with the same set of flaws drive policies and actions they favour. Their house favourite Greenpeace runs around destroying GM experimental crop. The IPCC does the exact same thing as Seralini except on a much vaster scale: release press proclamations to a captive audience. The fear-mongering junk science jamborees run for months on auto-pilot. There are numerous papers in animal toxicology, environmental and cancer research that have all the flaws listed against the Seralini paper. Sample size issues? There are clowns drawing conclusions from a sample size of zero! Data availability? There are people who refuse to release data 15 years after the paper was originally published. The authors are reported to have shown the journal editor their raw data.

Here’s the worst part: looking at authors’ data, the editor of the journal found “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” and commended them for “commitment to the scientific process”. The journal peer-review looked the sample sizes and “weighed that the work still had merit despite this limitation”. Yet, the paper has to be retracted.

Why? Because, according to the editor, “no definitive conclusions can be reached” from the small sample sizes and because, ridiculously enough, the “results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.” This, for a paper that already cleared the threshold and was published by the journal.

Only about a week back Science published an excellent article on the problems with animal studies. Surely, the torrent of informed criticism of the shoddy methodology in Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, stroke, Huntington’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease research must have reached you in full force, over the years.

A paper once published cannot be de-published. Beyond the universally acceptable violations of research norms of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and ethical violations, there remain little reason to retract a published paper. The critics of Seralini and the editor, collectively, seem unable to explain why numerous forms of redress available to them, namely, replies, letters to the editor, notices of concern, or corrections would not suffice. Such retractions without rationale are politics, not science.

The sooner science and scientists stop this Illuminati bullshit and get back to work, the better.

Greenpeace in the IPCC: Part II

Introduction
Remember the IPCC renewable energy report SRREN? The one which managed to mire itself in controversy almost immediately as it came out? The whole thing started with a press release announcing a notorious “80%” figure the trail of which led Steve McIntyre to a Greenpeace-authored report.

When controversy broke out, the IPCC’s response was to mollify and contain damage. There was no hiding the pressure group’s involvement so it took a different tack. In Nature magazine, IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer claimed, that despite Greenpeace presence there was no ‘bias’ or ‘conflict’. Though press releases sold the Greenpeace scenario the report looked at large ‘bodies of literature’, Greenpeace’s material was but 1 of ‘over 160’ scenarios analysed, was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the ‘decision’ to make Greenpeace ‘one of the four’ scenarios made by ‘a team’.

At the time, none of these could be verified. Draft reports and reviewer comments were nowhere to be found. Everyone was left holding just the press releases and the excuses. It was months before drafts were released.

The draft reports
Examining the drafts shows a different picture. The Greenpeace/Teske work was in the IPCC report even before it was published and right from the first order draft (FOD). In the FOD Chapter 10, the IPCC did not compare several different scenarios as was claimed. There were just two.  One of them was Greenpeace’s, straight from the pressure group pamphlet.

This is from the introduction in the FOD:

In this chapter, the renewable power cost curves for 10 world regions have been reviewed for 2030 exemplary for two scenarios – World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2008b) and Energy [R]evolution scenario (Krewitt et al, 2009a) – and one for 2050 (Energy [R]evolution scenario).

Note briefly the cited Krewitt et al 2009. This was an incarnation of Greenpeace’s ‘Energy [R]evolution’ published in 2009. The chapter then runs with table after table of Greenpeace material.

The tables and claims were referenced to Greenpeace report/s:

fod ref

Predictably, this raised questions.  One reviewer Francesco Gracceva noted the very point. The IPCC claim was to provide “robust insights”, from examining a “large and differentiated set of internally coherent and consistent scenarios” but instead

…[the] analysis carried out in 10.3.2 seems based on a quite limited set of scenarios, in fact two main sources, IEA and Greenpeace.

The U.S Department of State made the same observation:

As currently framed, this section does not adequately capture the value of analyzing 165 scenarios […]

John Kessels (International Energy Agency – IEA) on a key summary table in the chapter, noted the same thing:

IPCC reports have to be based on published literature that has been peer reviewed and to have a table based on theoritical (sic) exercises is disturbing and should be deleted unless based on published literature.

Kessels was directly critical of inclusion of Greenpeace material:

I think if you are going to use the Energy (R)evolution scenario you need to outline its assumptions and its analysis is in my view questionable.

[…]

General comment the IPCC AR4 did not use the Energy {R}evolution scenario for good reasons and to base this chapter on it is going to be seen as very bias an (sic) unbalanced.

Emmanuel Branche (French EDF) noting while the IEA scenario was in the peer-reviewed literature, questioned whether Greenpeace’s was. In a section on ‘regional energy supply curves’, Kessels reiterated: the IPCC being “reliant on one source in my view is questionable…”

The replies from the writing team prove eye-opening. In response to numerous comments on the limited nature of scenarios analysed, the authors reply – “more scenarios” will be “added”. This is how the other scenarios were added: they came in balancing the Greenpeace stuff.

To reviewers’ questions, the authors kept insisting the “Energy [R]evolution” scenario was “peer-reviewed”. Krewitt et al 2009 was peer-reviewed but did not form the source for the material presented in the chapter. There were no clear answers to where modeled data and numerical output presented in the tables came from.

Citation relay
The peer-review situation was dealt with by the authors in a remarkable manner. By the second order draft (SOD), the chapter authors had a paper in place. But it was
not the Teske et al 2010 which was not yet published by this time (Teske et al 2010 would be appear online in Nov 2010 whereas the review was in Jul-Aug 2010). Instead, in a form that essentially mirrored the pressure group’s full report, Greenpeace’s ‘Energy [R]evolution’ material appeared in a renewable energy vanity magazineSpanda.

sd

sf

It was the primary reference for all Greenpeace entries in the key Chapter 10. The article was published in the first issue of the first volume of its journal. Up until that point, ‘Spanda’ had only been an ‘e-newsletter’ for a renewable energy lobby.

In the final, the Spanda entry was simply replaced with the other Teske et al 2010 which by then appeared online. All citations to the Greenpeace report were deleted from the report text; all Greenpeace entries in the reference sections, removed. The IPCC report went through the review process with no one having seen the study on which its headline conclusions were based.

Conclusion
Several conclusions can be drawn. The report and the key chapter 10 was firmly in control of a group which intended to use Greenpeace material right from the beginning. The chapter was built around the Greenpeace narrative.

The sequence from the drafts contradicts many excuses made by Edenhofer and Teske at the time of the controversy. Teske, for example, impressed the Economist he had ‘had no peculiar Greenpeace lantern with which to bend them all [IPCC authors] to his will’.

Der Spiegel, the Economist, and Ars Technica dwelt at length on how the press release highlighted the 80% figure and made things worse for the IPCC. “It seems much of this controversy is the product of a bit too much of a hook in the press release, rather than an activist hijacking an IPCC report. “ – wrote Ars Technica’s Kyle Niemeyer.

But the drafts make clear the problems go deeper. The IPCC shepherded Greenpeace’s [R]evolution scenario through the report drafting process, sequentially incorporating its claims and substituting placeholder references in stepwise manner.

Global warming, a fossil fuel funded conspiracy … Why not?

Through Lubos Motl comes news of Novim, the group got BEST together, having won a $40,000 award. For making an app for the ipad. Funny you should make something of which there are close to 50 billion of, and win awards for it.

It is natural for interest groups to pat on the back those who help them for performing their role. Novim’s Michael Ditmore (pictured) picked up the award from a American Clean Skies Foundation, an outfit promoting natural gas. I’ve linked to the Board of Directors page. You can see they are either (a) natural gas and/or oilmen, or, (b) lawyers. The other thing is, if you want to be all green and kitsch … you’ve got to have a Burning Man-like icon as your logo.

A natural gas promoter would like millions of people learning about the global land thermometer record, wouldn’t it? Because natural gas is a ‘solution’ for global warming, right?

350.org. This segment was brought to you by the Rockefellers

Almost three years ago, I wrote about climate change propaganda websites. The first exhibit was the one shown below:

350.org

William McKibben’s ‘350’ organization has received $10 million in funding over the past 8 years. These are people who make it their business to speak about your money, all the time.

McKibben ideas – which he has for about $25,000 a year – are to deceive people into thinking that fossil fuels are dangerous and should be given up.

McKibben’s hypocrisy, it appears, was well-known. This is David Kamp ‘doing the math’ on his first book (the one with the dead bird on the cover) in Spy magazine, in 1989:

350

When asked what he wants to do with oil companies, McKibben reportedly said: “I don’t think financially we can cripple them. They’re so big and so rich,”

A while back, he parasitically attached himself to the ‘Occupy’ movement. Get that. A paid shill of the Rockefellers, protesting against the ‘1%’.

Activist trash going down the way of the activist trash.