posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:36 PM
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.
This is not to be construed as an effort in disparaging the IPCC. But it is a clear indicator of the duplicity we must contend with in the community
of those who "market" ideas to the global community. Even lacking errors or omissions, or outright lies; the appearance of impropriety serves
no-one's best interests.
As those who stand to gain from comprehensive studies and reports are allowed to craft the analysis of the material, it must always be clear that they
were involved and to what extent.
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."
Recently, another "global institution" the World health Organization made headlines with the story of the possible link between cell-phone use and
brain cancer. But their press release didn't include any weighty declarations about the method by which this rather bold conclusion was reached, nor
did it specify which scientific research led to the conclusion.
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
I think it's safe to say that if the intent is to spread knowledge, they will need to reconsider their technical tactics for reporting such important
(visit the link for the full news article)