More Unethical Behavior by the IPCC
The supposedly independent and objective Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, part of the United Nations, has done it again: Printed a claim made by an environmental advocacy group as their own without disclosing the source.
This centers around the IPCC's dubious claim that 80% of world energy can be provided by renewables by 2050. Steve McIntyre, a professional auditor, uncovered and writes about this latest fiasco.
ADDITION: 7:18am. From Mark Lynas who runs a prominent pro-global warming web site:
But whilst I still hold the hard-science Working Group 1 of the IPCC in very high regard, I have lost a lot of confidence in Working Group 3. That it allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO is an extraordinary failure, and one which cannot simply be forgotten...
This centers around the IPCC's dubious claim that 80% of world energy can be provided by renewables by 2050. Steve McIntyre, a professional auditor, uncovered and writes about this latest fiasco.
ADDITION: 7:18am. From Mark Lynas who runs a prominent pro-global warming web site:
But whilst I still hold the hard-science Working Group 1 of the IPCC in very high regard, I have lost a lot of confidence in Working Group 3. That it allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO is an extraordinary failure, and one which cannot simply be forgotten...
Additionally, the Greenpeace/renewables industry report is so flawed that it should not have been considered by the IPCC at all. Whilst the journal-published version looks like proper science, the propaganda version on the Greenpeace website has all the hallmarks of a piece of work which started with some conclusions and then set about justifying them. There is a whole section dedicated to ‘dirty, dangerous nuclear power’, and the scenario includes a complete phase-out of new nuclear globally, with no stations built after 2008.
How is this achieved whilst also reducing carbon emissions at the same time, which is after all the supposed point of the whole exercise? By assuming a totally unrealistic global consumption of energy, with total primary energy use in 2050 actually *less* than the baseline of 2007. The magic trick of getting rid of nuclear whilst generating 80% of the world’s energy from renewables is performed by making an absurd assumption that primary energy use will fall (from 469 exojoules today to 407 in 2050) even as population rises from 7 to 9 billion and GDP per capita more than doubles. I doubt this is even thermodynamically possible, let alone the basis for good policy.
Comments
Post a Comment