Greenpeace is Lead Author of IPCC Report
Posted by greg2213 on June 15, 2011
Another nail in the coffin of IPCC credibility.
Actually, for the greenies, it probably enhances IPCC cred since, naturally, any bias that Greenpeace might show is for the “greater good.” For policy makers, who are supposed to need objective info (I know, I’m incredibly naive) this should kill the report’s usefulness, but I expect the effects will be nil.
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.
The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario.
It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.
Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.
On ClimateAudit: IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke
WUWT chimes in: A blunder of staggering proportions by the IPCC
I’m not certain, but I don’t think this IPCC news will be of interest to the various government that are hell-bent on
destroying their economies coping with global warming. They will still hold the IPCC up as the gold standard, pretending that the gold-plate covering the base metal is really gold.
Maybe a few on the warm side will decide that there is something improper about
Big Oil Greenpeace writing their own IPCC chapter on the benefits of fossil fuel green/renewable energy usage. Maybe not. I expect most will see nothing whatsoever wrong with Big Oil Greenpeace doing this and will ridicule the IPCC critics appropriately.
- Bishop hill says: Ideological money laundering – “Can an organization that represents commercial enterprises really offer governmental organizations impartial policy advice? Imagine the furor that would ensue, were oil companies so instrumental in the design of EU policies and their implementation. Lobbying is one thing; such proximity to policy-making is quite another.”
- New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace – “…That release of the full report happened yesterday. And a close reading of it shows that the IPCC has made an error much more serious than the so-called Himalayagate and associated non-scandals last year …” (said non-scandals chipped away at IPCC cred, especially given how poorly handled was the response to said non-scandal.)
- More from Mark Lynas: Questions the IPCC must now urgently answer
- More for ClimateAudit: Responses from IPCC SRREN
- Judith Curry, Heretic: In reconsidering “monster creation,” a key element in this is the reaction of the warm-green side of the debate to even relatively moderate criticisms of the IPCC. You are ignored by the IPCC and vilified by its defenders, which makes you realize that there was even more there to criticize than you originally thought.
- Inconvenient Skeptic adds some remarks about similar conflicts of interest with certain geo-engineering projects. “It fully appears that the IPCC has turned into a gravy train for people that are using the “global warming crisis” to get filthy rich in the process. I guess they have all learned from Al Gore that using the crisis to get the government to pour money into your projects is the real way to wealth.”
- Followup from ClimateAudit: Lynas’ Questions
So far it looks as if my snark was correct. With very few exceptions the green crowd sees nothing whatsoever wrong with the IPCC’s actions regarding this report. Clearly it’s Ok for
Big Oil Greanpeace to participate in the creation of certain IPCC documents.
- Delingpole adds his usual delightful snark: Greenpeace and the IPCC: time, surely, for a Climate Masada?