It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is facing claims that it allowed a Greenpeace campaigner to have undue influence over the content of a new report on renewable energy.
More than a month ago, the panel won headlines on the basis of a press release about the report. Now the full report is out, the press release has been criticised because its top line was based on a peer-reviewed paper that had Sven Teske, Greenpeace International's renewable energy director, as one of its lead authors. Teske was also a lead author for the relevant chapter in the full IPCC report.
Only when the report was published on Tuesday did it emerge that this optimistic scenario came from a paper in the journal Energy Efficiency co-authored by Teske. An earlier, longer version of the paper had been published by Greenpeace.
The charge of a conflict of interest has been made by people unconnected with climate scepticism. On his blog, the British climate change campaigner Mark Lynas says: "This really has got to stop. No campaigners or industry people should surely ever be allowed to be IPCC lead authors."
Bob Ward of the London School of Economics, policy and communications director to climate economist Nicholas Stern, defended the IPCC, saying the report cited for the 77-per-cent scenario was published in a peer-reviewed journal. But he told New Scientist there were "legitimate criticisms" about both how the panel came to highlight for the media "one of many hundreds of papers that were reviewed", and why it delayed publishing the full report.
Carbon market prices could tumble 75 percent if credits for re-growing forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, Greenpeace claims.
A report issued during U.N. talks on a climate treaty said that forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology. "Forest credits sound attractive but they are a dangerous option," Greenpeace International's political adviser on forests said
The idea of REDD was first brought to the table during the Kyoto protocol negotiations in 1997 which first recognised the important role that forests could play in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation.
Originally posted by neo96
science aint about science anymore they have finally become capitalists.
they want money and they get money by telling people what they wanna hear whether or not facts support it or not.
but with a twist "other people" saw their success and usurped that movement to push their agendas.
considering the level of education in america the dumbing down of its citizens and pushing that agenda thats how we got to where we are.
For climate scientists to make positive inroads in policy regarding a problem we know is only going to get worse - pollution and climate change - they need to police the actions of a few in their circle, most notably the very loud.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has existed for over two decades now - they are not new to politics and this is not gotcha journalism from WikiLeaks; they have also already been implicated by an independent commission created by the United Nations for their use of 'gray' literature published as data and for ignoring commentary on what studies it uses in reports.
Who lets scientists assess their own study and decide whether or not the study is accurate?
If Exxon scientists were writing skewed reports which got published in the mainstream news, would we let that go unchallenged? Especially if their version was the most optimistic of 163 others and contained a glaring flaw like that 2 billion more people would require less energy, so fossil fuels would mean less emissions then?
If not, climate scientists shouldn't continue to let the IPCC damage their reputations this way.