In the comments on the last thread, Pointman wonders whether there might be problems with some of the other chapters of the IPCC renewables report. This thread is for any findings on the bioenergy chapter, which can be found here.
Mark Lynas is back in the groove, relaying new allegations of bias in the renewables report - this time related to the hydropower chapter.
“The value of the IPCC report is weakened by the strongly biased treatment of hydropower,” says Peter Bosshard, policy director for International Rivers, which campaigns to raise attention of the damaging effects large dams can have on riverine ecosystems. “At least half of the lead authors of the hydropower chapter are not independent scientists, but have a vested interest in the promotion of hydropower. This creates a conflict of interest, which is reflected throughout the report.”
Some context. Over at Keith Kloor's Ray Pierrehumbert, RealClimate blog founder, left a rather rude comment ending with this about troublesome voices like McIntyre, McKittrick, and Watts.
"... big as the IPCC tent may be, I hope there will never be a place in it for any of these clowns."
Which made me conclude that Ray thinks that the IPCC is a circus and it should only be populated by approved and accredited clowns. Fair enough.
Our glorious government here in the UK is considering subsidising the Irish wind industry.
THE BRITISH government could massively subsidise the Irish wind energy industry under proposals to be considered in London today.
Britain believes the west coast and the seas around Ireland can provide it with a large amount of its renewable energy and could be willing to subsidise offshore wind farms there.
Industry groups here say such a move could be worth up to €1.6 billion a year to the Irish economy.
These clowns really have to go don't they?
One academic who is untroubled by yesterday's call for adherents to the AGW hypothesis to stop calling their opponents "deniers" is Stephan Lewandowsky, an Australian academic who has a somewhat offensive piece in The Conversation, the chat site for university people.
At a time when Greenland is losing around 9,000 tonnes of ice every second — all of which contributes to sea level rises – it is time to hold accountable those who invert common standards of science, decency, and ethics in pursuit of their agenda to delay action on climate change.
It's an interesting piece, covering a range of areas of interest to readers here, including the Hockey Stick (without mentioning McIntyre and McKitrick!), the travails of Prof Wegman, and the peer review of the Soon and Baliunas paper.
Scibloggers are all tweeting furiously about this article on the Skeptoid blog. It's a pretty interesting piece, which argues that sceptics should follow the data and warmists should be nicer. There's much to agree with, but the author Craig Good rather shoots himself in the foot by repeated recommending Skeptical Science as an unbiased source on the subject of global warming.
As I have pointed out in the past, Skeptical Science's reporting of some issues I am familiar with are deeply troubling. It is hard to credit the site's failure to even mention that the Hide the Decline dataset had been truncated.
I've not followed the sea level rise story closely, but my interest was piqued by Morner's lecture at Cambridge a few weeks back. I don't suppose this news will surprise him very much.
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.
The story seems to be that the land is rising, increasing the carrying capacity of the oceans. This would effectively reduce the amount of sea level rise expected, and we couldn't have that - hence the "adjustment". The effect of the adjustment appears to be small when put against the projected rises, but is certainly material against the actual changes recorded (although these are, per Morner, wrong).
L'affaire Greenpeace continues to stir media interest. The Economist's Babbage column is the latest to weigh in, with this:
...the authors of the IPCC chapter involved declined to evaluate the scenarios they looked at in terms of whether they thought they were plausible, let alone likely. Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist who was one of those in overall charge of the report, gives the impression that he would have welcomed a more critical approach from his colleagues; but there is no mechanism by which the people in charge can force an author team to do more, or other, than it wants to.
[I]f the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’
Mark Lynas deals with criticism head on.
(H/T Barry Woods)
L'affaire Greenpeace rumbles on. Richard Tol has posted some thoughts here:
That study also assumes rapid technological progress in renewables and none in fossil fuels. That is a silly assumption.
Meanwhile Joe Romm is on Mark Lynas's case. I expect to hear about Lynas's links to big oil very shortly.
This is a guest post by Ben Pile, of Climate Resistance fame.
As everybody now knows, the headlines from IPCC WGIII report on renewable energy appear to have been written by Greenpeace. When the Summary for Policy Makers was published last month, I was one of many who noted the role of Greenpeace, and the extent to which the SPM's authors were involved in the renewable energy industry. Steve McIntyre's discovery has caused further criticism of the IPCC's letting such overt agendas near its evidence-making for policy-makers, even from the green camp, albeit only because it is such bad PR. But there is yet more to this story.