Conflict of interest claimed for IPCC energy report

Conflict of interest claimed for IPCC energy report

www.newscient ist.com

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.newscientist.com
srren.ipc c-wg3.de

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 report.

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 news.


www.newscient ist.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Maxmars


Greenpeace International has also opposed effective CO2 mitigation methods that detract from the funding of like-minded organizations and programs, and do so at fractions of the costs and near-zero risks.

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

Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace

This, after the Kyoyo Protocol spefically endorsed reforestation and anti-deforestation programs in its carbon market schemes.

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.

www.forestsclimatechange.org...

The obvious value of forest management to mitigation of CO2, contrary to Greenpeace's objections, is becoming ever more clear.
Rising forest density offsets climate change

Leave it those most likely to benefit from the AGW orthodxy to endorse "solutions" from which they benefit, and oppose those from which they receive none.

jw

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.

Originally posted by neo96
science aint about science anymore they have finally become capitalists.

I don't see them so much as capitalists as evangelists or politicians. Most scientists are not themselves "in it for the money," although the same can't be said for their employers, publishers, contributors and donors.

they want money and they get money by telling people what they wanna hear whether or not facts support it or not.

If "they" are the organizations and programs that profit, grow and thrive based on the scientisits work, then yes, indeed.

but with a twist "other people" saw their success and usurped that movement to push their agendas.

Success breeds success. If it works for "the other guy," there's no reason (other than ethics and facts) it can't work for the opposite side of the equation.

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.

P.T. Barnum had no idea what America's youth and educational system would become.

jw

reply to post by jdub297




pt barnum was wise beyond his years: theres a sucker born every minute

so he did foresee the current state of affairs.

scientists count on it these days

reply to post by Maxmars


A major part of the problem with AGW "climate science is summed up thusly:

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.

Should Greenpeace Be Writing IPCC Reports?

jw