Off With Their ‘eads!

Over at Climate Audit, Steve has called for the sacking of the entire WGIII.

Here’s Steve:

Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

Apparently even Mark Lynas thinks so…

…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 – it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time. Yet this time McIntyre has got it right.

Why the histrionics strident language?

It’s the Special Report of WGIII and the press release that came out prior to the release of the larger document.

Now, we all know Steve is not a fan of the IPCC. His life for the past decade seems to be about auditing the IPCC and climate science used in it to determine if it lives up to the Mining Industry’s high standards.

He doesn’t think it does.


This sort of press release is not permitted in mining promotions and it remains a mystery to me why it is tolerated in academic press releases or press releases by international institutions.

Shucks, I don’t know why the IPCC can’t live up to the high standards of the mining industry. Do you?

Oh, why can’t climate science be more like mining promotion?

Steve must be referring to mining industry examples like Anvil Mining. Or maybe the W R Grace Company? Perhaps he means Massey Energy? I could go on by it would be tedious to document all the cases of stellar behaviour on the part of the mining industry.

What has caused this call for the heads of the WGIII?


Mitigation potentials and costs

A significant increase in the deployment of RE by 2030, 2050 and beyond is indicated in the majority of the 164 scenarios reviewed in this Special Report.11 In 2008, total RE production was roughly 64 EJ/yr (12.9% of total primary energy supply) with more than 30 EJ/yr of this being traditional biomass. More than 50% of the scenarios project levels of RE deployment in 2050 of more than 173 EJ/yr reaching up to over 400 EJ/yr in some cases (Figure SPM.9). Given that traditional biomass use decreases in most scenarios, a corresponding increase in the production level of RE (excluding traditional biomass) anywhere from roughly three-fold to more than ten-fold is projected. The global primary energy supply share of RE differs substantially among the scenarios. More than half of the scenarios show a contribution from RE in excess of a 17% share of primary energy supply in 2030 rising to more than 27% in 2050. The scenarios with the highest RE shares reach approximately 43% in 2030 and 77% in 2050. [10.2, 10.3] (my emphasis)


10 ‘Negative estimates’ within the terminology of lifecycle assessments presented in the SRREN refer to avoided emissions. Unlike the case of bioenergy combined with CCS, avoided emissions do not remove GHGs from the atmosphere. 11 For this purpose a review of 164 global scenarios from 16 different large-scale integrated models was conducted. Although the set of scenarios allows for a meaningful assessment of uncertainty, the reviewed 164 scenarios do not represent a fully random sample suitable for rigorous statistical analysis and do not represent always the full RE portfolio (e.g., so far ocean energy is only considered in a few scenarios) [10.2.2]. For more specific analysis, a subset of 4 illustrative scenarios from the set of 164 was used. They represent a span from a baseline scenario without specific mitigation targets to three scenarios representing different CO2 stabilization levels. [10.3]

From: SRREN       P. 18 of 24      Special Report Renewable Energy Sources

The claim in the press release was that Renewable Energy (RE) could compromise comprise up to 80% of the energy supply by 2050 according to a model scenario, depending on different CO2 stabilization levels and other factors, like applicable policies, etc.

What is the most scandalous — that such a high figure is highlighted or who was involved in highlighting it? Or both?

Seems to me that people who want to be scandalized find ample material…

It also seems to me that those of us who accept the preponderance of scientific evidence on the existence of AGW must try to understand future impacts and ways to mitigate and adapt. If we really do want to limit GHEs and associate warming, we have to find energy alternatives that work — unless we want to join the Amish and live a pre-industrial life.

Not me.

So, the problem is that we’re trying to see into the future, using models to try to forecast what might occur with RE given various scenarios. This is the kind of thing that can’t be done in a laboratory — the lab is our earth and our societies and we don’t get a do-over. So this isn’t pure science. It’s as much social science as it is engineering and art.

In other words, it’s not pure science, it’s not the usual peer-reviewed literature. It’s a lot of engineers and people in business and other fields — and even the dread NGOs — who actually think about these issues on a regular basis. This is why some grey literature is allowed in IPCC reports under specific conditions. Some good work is done outside the scientific literature. For WGIII, it is a key part of the evidence, if done properly.

What is the source of the current IPCC-Gate Du Jour?

An article published in the journal Energy Efficiency by Sven Teske and others that made its way into the IPCC Special Report and the fact that Sven Teske is a Director of Greenpeace’s Renewable Energy Campaign. He is an engineer who has worked for Greenpeace since graduation in 1994 with his Dipl. Ing — equivalent to a Masters in Engineering.

He was also a Lead Author of the WGIII Chapter 10, which cites his work. Since graduation, he has written almost two dozen reports on energy.

So, the issue is that Sven Teske, a Greenpeace employee, wrote an article which was used in the WGIII Chapter 10, of which he was a Lead Author.

McIntyre and his echo chamber argue that IPCC shouldn’t have appointed Teske as a Lead Author because he is in a conflict of interest — he is an employee of an NGO — Greenpeace — and so has a bias. He was part of a group that reviewed his own work and thus can’t be objective.

I don’t know — I can’t feel very scandalized. I suspect that there isn’t a huge number of researchers and experts in this field who are willing to do this work. I suspect that the IPCC selects those they believe are experts in their fields. I suspect that those experts might at some point end up reviewing their own work because they were picked because they were the experts! It’s a hazard of this enterprise. It is a weakness that should be mitigated by having a strong field of other experts who can provide a counter-weight to any bias the individual expert might have.

Skeptics are always asserting that just because folks like McIntyre attend workshops funded by fossil fuel interests such as the Heartland Institute or the CEI or others, or just because they are tied to the fossil fuel industry or industries that create high levels of GHEs, their work auditing climate science and AGW is not necessarily tainted.

We should look at the works themselves and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Is the WGIII special report really that bad and is the presence of Teske and his work so tainting that the entire org should be sacked?

What do you think?

(is this post sufficiently non-polemical and dialogue-encouraging to meet high Foucauldian standards? 🙂 )


Here’s Greenpeace’s response:

From Andy Revkin’s blog:
Responding to questions about Greenpeace’s influence on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation, Sven Teske, Senior Energy Expert at Greenpeace International said:

“Each country was invited to propose authors for the Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN). Germany suggested eight people – of the seven chosen, I was, as far as I am aware, the only engineer working with an environmental NGO”.

“The IPCC SRREN report went through four review rounds, with review rounds of six to eight weeks. With more than 120 contributors, each tasked with dealing with lists of comments, the idea of Greenpeace being able to ‘dictate’ a conclusion is clearly absurd”.

With Exxon, Chevron and the French nuclear operator EDF also contributing to the IPCC, trying to suggest that this expert UN body is a wing of Greenpeace is preposterous. In fact, Greenpeace has criticised the IPCC for being too conservative over the years. On this occasion our advice was given weight, but that’s hardly surprising given that it was developed with the German Aerospace Centre while the London’s Imperial College, and companies like Oxford Economics and McKinsey have also outlined the vast potential of renewable energy.”

“The Energy Revolution scenario project was a partnership between Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), an umbrella group of organisations within the renewable energy industry, which provided key data for the project. The actual modeling was performed by the German Space Agency (DLR).

“The report has been peer reviewed by energy experts and its data, methods and conclusions are entirely transparent and open to public scrutiny. EREC’s members represent a wide range of corporations with interests in renewable energy including Siemens and the French nuclear manufacturer AREVA. Greenpeace features the report prominently on our website because its conclusions show the potential of renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out the use of fossil fuels, while also eliminating nuclear power dependence in the coming decades.”

Sven Teske is an expert in renewable energy who has many years of experience within the renewable energy industry, and is currently a senior energy expert at Greenpeace International. (my emphasis)

And here is the Co-Chair of WGIII, also from Andy Revkin’s blog:

“Over 160 [164] existing scientific scenarios on the possible penetration of renewables by 2050, alongside environmental and social implications, have been reviewed with four analyzed in-depth. These four were chosen in order to represent the full range. […]

The most optimistic of the four, in-depth scenarios projects renewable energy accounting for as much as 77 percent of the world‘s energy demand by 2050, amounting to about 314 of 407 Exajoules per year. […]

77 percent is up from just under 13 percent of the total primary energy supply of around 490 Exajoules in 2008. Each of the scenarios is underpinned by a range of variables such as changes in energy efficiency, population growth and per capita consumption. These lead to varying levels of total primary energy supply in 2050, with the lowest of the four scenarios seeing renewable energy accounting for a share of 15 percent in 2050, based on a total primary energy supply of 749 Exajoules.”

Sven Teske was nominated as an author by the German government and selected by the WGIII as Lead author in the IPCC’s continuous effort to draw on the full range of expertise, and this includes NGOs and business as well as academia. Chapter 10 has been thouroughly reviewed by independent experts and governments. He is one of nine Lead Authors, with two Coordinating Lead Authors overseeing the process of writing the chapter. He has made substantial contributions, but was neither the only nor the leading person in this team effort.

Kind regards,

Ottmar Edenhofer
Co-chair Working Group III, IPCC

As usual, McIntyre can only overstate, conflate, misrepresent, smear and make innuendo.

About Policy Lass

Exploring skeptic tales.

49 Responses to “Off With Their ‘eads!”

  1. > compromise up to 80%

    Please delete your entire website, as one misword makes anything in it utterly unreliable for any purpose.

  2. > is this post sufficiently non-polemical and dialogue-encouraging to meet high Foucauldian standards?

    No. Please terminate.

  3. Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    And how many penny stock mining companies has McIntyre been involved with?

  4. Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 15, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    Posted at Judith’s and Lyna’s…

    I hate to say it, but I think you all are getting your panties in a wad over nothing. None, not one, of the authors of the “Greenpeace” Scenario are authors of the SRREN report, which can be found here.. Steve, as he so often does, conflated issues and made a mountain out of a molehill. I have difficulty in seeing the issue here. They headlined a scenario which could keep us below the politically agreed upon goal of 450ppm and 2C total warming, a target which, AFAIK has no solid scientific support. I haven’t had time to read the SPM, much less the full report, but just on the surface it does seem as though Steve’s charges, and Lyna’s echoing of those charges, is a bit misplaced.

    Steveie seems to be upset that Teske was involved in AR4, even though he was not involved in this report. WTF is his problem…

  5. How about this foolishness at Dot Earth from Stinky Pete:

    And the people who should be most upset with IPCC’s failure to carefully assess the Greenpeace scenario are those who are most worried about climate change. IPCC failed to provide the close examination of renewables from truly independent people that the public expects and is entitled to.

    Yeah, it’s the IPCC’s fault that McIntyre makes a really big deal about everything but plagiarized reports that “rubber-stamp” his work. I think I’d rather blame the irrational dog whistlers and incompetent media for things like this. Then we might be able to actually fix the problems like the “public expects”. He’s like an arsonist who blames the availability of fire for his behavior. What a pathetic display this has been. I’m thinking history isn’t going to smile upon McIntyre all that well. Wake me up in a week when the media catches up. This one is dirty.

  6. Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 15, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    I did get something wrong there.

    Teske was listed as an author for Ch 10, but has was not an author for the SPM, the group which released the press release which he bitched about so mightly.

  7. > truly independent people

    Why do these McIntyre people hate the invisible hand of the marketplace?

    They want inverse marketability to define who the IPCC invites as a leading author.
    Ever worked in the field? Sorry, not independent.

    They would disallow anyone who has been competent enough in the area to have held a job in it.

  8. ” it has allowed its headline conclusion to be dictated by a campaigning NGO. Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre,”

    I doubt that McIntyre even made the connection or found this “startling revelation”. He is far too preoccupied with his witch hunt of Mann et al. to care about the report of renewable energy IMHO. Much more likely is that he is taking credit for something fed to him by one of his fans. Has anyone asked him about this?

    And yes, very likely another storm in McI’s very stormy tea cup– but he is required to keep those rabid fans frothing at the mouths and feeding them fodder.

    And this does offer a respite for poor Steve from the rather devastating revelations regarding Wegman and the recent findings by Nick Stokes…”look squirrel!!”, shouts Steve. No Steve, our eyes are still all firmly on you 🙂

  9. Oh, and as to McI griping that Greenpeace wrote the headline on the press release, he’s out of touch with how these things are done if he imagines he’s the first one to notice there’s a problem with press release headlines, and leaping to blame his personal demon for doing what PR people do naturally, that is screw up:

  10. If you graphed “Seriousness of problem in IPCC report” against “Proposed Remedy” it would look a lot like “Solar Activity” against “Temperature”.

    My model predicts that by 2100 solar activity will be zero, temperatures will be 100 degrees Celsius, flaws in the IPCC report will relate to font choice and the proposed remedy will be the carpet bombing of everyone involved with nukes.

  11. Hey, I’m still gawping at Lynas’s headline: “… conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace …” — remarking that the words “conclusion” and “dictated by” should be corrected to read “headline” and “not written by”

    So what PR schlump wrote Lynas’s blog headline on that page? Clearly it’s not up to his reputation for fact-checking, which suffers rather badly.


    McIntyre provided Lynas with a multi-stage orbit-capable man-rated petard and Lynas is riding it?

  12. > Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

    This usage of “terminate” deserves du diligence.

    Our Foucaldian digs made us find that “terminate” occurs twice in this post by Michael Levi [1]:

    The first occurence is this paraphrase:

    > The EIA got slammed by the budget deal, which cut its FY11 funding by $15.2 million from its FY10 level of $110.6 million. It’s just announced the efforts that it will have to terminate as a result

    The second one is this quote from EIA’s press release, where the word appears four times [2]:

    > Terminate updates to EIA’s International Energy Statistics.

    Here are the efforts the EIA announced to “terminate”:

    – the preparation and publication of the annual petroleum marketing data report and the fuel oil and kerosene sales report;

    – annual data collection and report on geothermal space heating (heat pump) systems;

    – annual data collection and report on solar thermal system;

    – updates to EIA’s International Energy Statistics.

    The press release does not specify if it will also terminate those who prepare, publish, collect or update data.


    This tip from Keith Kloor just in: The IPCC projects to terminate cirrus clouds [3].


  13. “Shucks, I don’t know why the IPCC can’t live up to the high standards of the mining industry.”

    Um making bizaar claims that all glaciers in the Himalayas will be gone in 25 years, and having organzations like Greenpeace on the review board easily lives up to the high standards of the mining industry, in my view. And I don’t think Rachendra Pachauri should step down, he’s doing such a great job of destroying the IPCC you’d think he was on the payroll of big oil.


  14. And Klem elects to miss the point and strike down is own strawman…bravo, and yes, cheers.

  15. Somehow these contributors to the report missed Steve’s keen eye (or whoever informed him):

    HAGELÜKEN, Christian
    Umicore Precious Metals Refining

    DEMAYO, Trevor N.
    Chevron Energy Technology Co.
    United States of America / Canada

    LEE, Arthur
    Chevron Corporation
    United States of America

    WRIGHT, Raymond M.
    Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica (PCJ)

  16. And Curry has been singing Stevie’s praises for his “detective work”.

    Yep, Teske is listed in the Contributing Authors Annex as being with Greenpeace.
    And the article is listed in the references.

    Steve’s a genius, didn’t ya know?

    What a great big steaming pile of horseshit.

  17. Shucks Michael I don;t know, one GreenPeace affiliated person out of 95, and the whole report has to be a GreenPeace ACTIVIST or UN conspiracy to control us. He is a genius is our Stevie.

    Talking of horse shit (step away form hot drinks and breakable objects before reading):

  18. Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 16, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    In which Steve admits that he really is just complaining about the press release:

    But then we all, on both side of this issue, complain about press releases, because they often overstate results. This keeps getting stupider and stupider…

    • As expected, the press release’s the problem. When it says something he doesn’t like, of course. Didn’t hear Stevie complain about all them press releases about “final nail in the coffin”…

  19. So the whole WPG III should be disbanded due to a press release?

    A real frakkin’ genius.

    • Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 16, 2011 at 9:49 pm

      And he doesn’t like Greenpeace.

      I know, I know, it *is* a pretty trenchant criticism and we have to take it seriously. After all he is Steve McIntyre.

  20. This pack pedaling by Stevie is pretty pathetic. How about someone revisits the sequence of events and reminds him that his claim that it is “just complaining about the press release” is an out and out lie.

  21. He’s popped up over at Curry’s, should you care to ask directly.

  22. To manage conflicts of interest, the IPCC could amend their existing protocols with a proviso against conflicts of interest. A boilerplate might be enough, for instance:

    > Conflicts of Interest – There are potential conflicts of interest to which the directors, officers and principal shareholders of the Corporation will be subject in connection with the operations of the Corporation. Some of the directors, officers and principal shareholders may be or become engaged in other oil and gas interests on their own behalf and on behalf of other corporations, and situations may arise where the directors and officers will be in direct competition with the Corporation. Conflicts, if any, will be subject to the procedures and remedies under the Business Corporations Act (Ontario). The directors and officers of the Corporation may not devote their time on a full-time basis to the affairs of the Corporation.


    This proviso is taken from the “management’s discussion and analysis of financial condition and results of operation”, a promotion document (in the technical sense) produced by CGX Energy for the three months period that ended March 31, 2011.

    There are some details to be changed, for instance the reliance of the Business Corporations Act from the Province of Ontario. Looking under this act may help to improve the boilerplate:

    If this looks quite tough, consider this variation on the theme:

    > Conflicts of Interest – Certain directors of the Company are also directors or officers or officers or shareholders of other companies that are similarly engaged in the business of acquiring, developing and exploiting natural resource properties. Such associations may give rise to conflicts of interest from time to time. The directors of the Company are required by law to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Company and to disclose any interest, which they may have in any project or opportunity of the Company. **If a conflict of interest arises at a meeting of the board of directors, any director in a conflict will disclose his interest and abstain from voting on such matter.** In determining whether or not the Company will participate in any project or opportunity, the directors will primarily consider the degree of risk to which the Company may be exposed and its financial position at that time.

    Click to access Vena%202007%20AIF.pdf

    So if a director discloses his or her interest and abstains from voting on such matter, all is good, unless of course these statements go against the law, which does not seem plausible.

  23. Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 17, 2011 at 9:10 am

    Worth pointing out that Wright was an LA on the now infamous Chapter 10.

    • > The need for energy is increasing, as are the requirements for reduced adverse environmental impact. It is imperative that new and cleaner energy resources be developed. Nuclear Energy and Hydrogen could become an important part of the future energy matrix regionally and globally. The world economies should begin to plan for higher fossil fuel prices and to make optimal investments in energy efficiency and economically viable renewables. Governments will continue to play a leading role in energy supply, while public private partnerships will grow as the energy sector increasingly becomes an important business for private investment.

      Notice the byline in red at the end of the article.

      • Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 17, 2011 at 7:25 pm


        Thanks for this. It would appear that Wright is what I would call a realist. He is not a “green eyed” optimist but believes in a role for RE both now and in the future.

        It is clear that the author team did include a range of views, which is probably the best way to deal with conflicting views that I can think of.

  24. Did you notice that McI failed to mention that Teske was also the author of the least favourable of the 4 scenarios featured in depth and mentioned in the press release?

    • Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 17, 2011 at 12:16 pm

      He was responsible for the extension out to 2050 on that one (the IEA-WEC2009-Baseline). I’m not sure that I would call him the author, though.

  25. Mark Lynas has had a second bite of the cherry.

    He’s appears not to have noticed that while he is charging into the breach, crying ‘death or glory!!’, McIntyre has been quietly backpedalling away.

    You almost feel sorry for him . Almost.

    • Rattus Norvegicus Reply June 17, 2011 at 6:55 pm

      Oh Mark is backpedaling pretty fast too. He’s down to a lack of conflict of interest policy by the IPCC (agreed, I think the IPCC ought to make author affiliations more clear and what possible COI might be, like the scientific literature in general) but I don’t think that people should be excluded be they have a high level of expertise in an area. If banishment is the punishment for having expertise, the IPCC might as well just become a blog. This last seems to be a point he agrees with.

      He’s backed off on charges about the scenario and backed off on charges about the press release because, as expected, Teske had nothing to do with it. However, he has attracted a whole new class(?) of commenters to his blog.

      I can understand, but do not fully endorse, the COI charges. This is a difficult problem, especially for WG III, since so much of the work is being done by industry and NGOs, but the same problem exists for academics who will generally defend their views unto death. Making clear the funding sources for authors of IPCC reports is probably the best that can be expected and should be adequate as far as I am concerned. This should be done up front rather than cryptically in the Annexes to the reports. But that is about all.

      • Yes, but as I’ve pointed out at Curry’s there’s a whole buch of COI and bias everywhere, not that they are interested in a discussion on difficult realities and sensible solutions.

        It’ unavoidable, the question is how to deal with it.

        Number one – which is what the IPCC has done already – is basic disclosure. We know who Sven Teske is because the report identifies him and his affiliations As it does with eveyone of the other lead and contributing authors. No mysteries, no astro-turfing.

        Number 2 – COI. Harder, because potential COI is everywhere, but disclosure is the first step in this.
        Unwittingly it seems, McIntyre and Lynas chose the worst possible example to try and argue their case – Greenpeace. Are they suggesting people might not know what Greenpeace do and what their angle is?? Might someone have thought Greenpeace was a scientific organisation producing disinterested original research? Sheesh.
        A standard solution to COI is an explicit statement from authors on any COI they belive they have. It could be an additional annex with a breif para from each outlining any COI they are aware of.

        There’s a range of other possibilities in the production of the reports that could be considered, none of them perfect.

  26. In Mark’s new topic, he writes his idea of how the world should work
    “… a press release should not be released unchecked by the experts whose work it is meant to highlight.”

    That’s good, and it’s along the lines MT previously suggested at

    Mark then suggests a rule for the IPCC, quoted in part:

    “… industry employees – should not be lead authors ….”

    That’ll wake’em up over there.

    This brings us the good news that Greenpeace believes climate change can be avoided.

    Say what? Yeah, that’s a big deal, considering what’s been thought to date about committed warming.
    Lookit the headline on their press release: “Renewable energy is indispensible to avoiding climate change”

    So — avoiding climate change _is_ possible. Watts and Spencer will be delighted to know this is accepted by Greenpeace.

    Yes, it’s odd they’d slip that into a press release headline. But as Mark points out, that’s … er … something.

  27. On the 2011-06-16, at 9:38 in the morning, Steve McIntyre underlines two critical issues.

    > The critical issues are (1) whether the lead statement – the one that was actually covered – was untrue and (2) based on a Greenpeace scenario that had not been independently assessed.

    The first issue is not enough, as learned an under-concerned Andy Revkin on the 2011-06-15, at 16:04:

    > I also think that you are under-concerned about the lack of independent due diligence on the Greenpeace scenario that was emphasized in the press release.

    Source –

    On the 2011-06-17, at 4:56 in the morning, Steve McIntyre folded these two issues into one, making it more difficult to be under-concerned about any of the two issues:

    > My issue is with IPCC’s lack of independent due diligence. People are starving for analysis. IPCC can’t say that their report ‘shows’ that this is a viable path if it hasn’t been thoroughly cross-examined.

    Source –

    The image of people starving for analysis might explain why Steve read the document in a short time:

    > Based on my reading of the document so far (and it’s only been available a short time), this statement is untrue on its face. As far as I can tell, the report does NOT show that ‘close to 80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies’. Yes, it lists a scenario from Greenpeace in which 77% of world energy is supplied by renewables, but the report itself did not conduct any independent assessment of the validity of the Greenpeace scenario and did not ‘show’ that the claim in the press release was true.

    We can see that, according to Steve, “being untrue” means “being untrue on its face” (i.e. until shown other wise), and to “show” means to “assess independently.”

    On the 2011-06-15, at 22:30, Steve already had an opinion on the content of the scenario:

    > While attention has been drawn to the scenario because of the Greenpeace connection, the scenario itself seems to be mostly wishful thinking. Anti-science, so to speak.

    A source of the anti-scientific wishful thinking might have been identified a day earlier, on the 2011-06-14, at 22:32:

    > These scenarios don’t have any statistical meaning nor can any likelihood be assigned to them.

    All this might explain why on the 2011-06-14, at 17:31, Steve McIntyre finished off his first blog post with:

    > Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch.

  28. Would I be correct in understanding that this faint-breeze-in-a-teacup affair has led to ‘pants on fire’ McIntyre’s first explicit call for the IPCC to be disbanded?

  29. no, chek, check what McI actually wrote — look for words inside quotation marks. Not paraphrases.

  30. Hilarious seeing the likes of Watts welcoming Mark Lynas “to the club”. He’s clearly neither read nor watched, Six Degrees. Summary at The Times.

  31. If I were Lynas I would be ashamed by the mass of fawning deniers that have descended on his blog to congratulate him for “joining the club”, “seeing the light”, blah, blah.

    I’d also get a rather huge clue that I must have something very badly wrong given who is serenading me – but Lynas seems rather pleased with his new friends and fan club.

    Mark Lynas goes in to the ‘with environmentalists like this who needs corporate shills’ bin.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: