A Controversy Renewed
Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet, is not only disturbed by the IPCC’s latest bungle, he’s paying credit to Steve McIntyre for picking up on it.
Bishop Hill has gathered some initial reaction from across the spectrum.
It’ll be another grand merry go round, courtesy of the IPCC.
I suppose these people are so dumb that they thought they would get away with it. What is it, an effing kindergarten?
Oh, I suspect the explanation is simpler than that:
1) This IPCC does a review of the literature on future energy scenarios. They include quite a number (164) of different scenarios, including (unfortunately) a rather unrealistic one published in a small journal (Energy Efficiency) that is based on a Greenpeace report.
2) The press office, trying to make a rather dry technical report more newsworthy, takes a sentence on page 19 of the summary for policy makers (“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.”) and turn it into “Renewable technologies could supply 80% of the world’s energy needs by mid-century.”
It certainly doesn’t reflect well on the IPCC, but its worth pointing out that the report itself is generally well done (with the notable exception of the Teske scenario) and worth reading.
Actually, reading deeper into the report, it looks like they choose the Teske et al scenario as one of the four illustrative scenarios in Chapter 10. Ugh. Its the SRES B2 silliness all over again…
Sashka Says:
I suppose these people are so dumb that they thought they would get away with it
When is the last time an academic or head of an NGO got sent to jail for ‘cooking the books’? What difference does it make if they get caught, they’ll never serve hard time.
Forget about jail. I am talking about harming their own cause via the reputation damage.
Welp, it doesn’t matter how this actually played out, whether the Teske report was legit or not, or if, as Zeek points out, it is more of a problem with the academic press office for the IPCC. Here’s what people will hear: Controversy. IPCC. Conflict of Interests.
Ballgame.
My analysis of the situation (http://ecologicalsociology.blogspot.com/2011/06/ipcc-shoots-itself-in-foot-again.html) is fairly similar to Zeke’s: There may be an innocent reason for the press release emphasis, but there is no excuse for the prominence given to the ER-2010 scenario when it was based on such obviously false assumptions. While the public reaction will be as grypo notes, this (sadly) indicates a deeper problem with the IPCC assessment process.
Here’s what people will hear: Controversy. IPCC. Conflict of Interests.
Yup. Someone involved in the IPCC passes gas and it’s a “grand merry-go-round” – all the entire IPCC’s fault (no one’s trying to spin it any faster).
Lynas has had some fact-checking problems recently.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/04/13/207880/mark-lynas-error-cost-nuke-op-ed/
and I think his post is an overreach as well, with proclamations such as “allowed the report to be dictated by a campaigning NGO” not supported (as if there is only one lead author, there are more than 20), to which he backs off to saying anyone from NGOs shouldn’t ever be lead authors.
Moreover, the conclusion he refers to as deriving from “grey literature” or “Greenpeace propaganda” is also a published peer-reviewed study, of which Teske is one of 8 co-authors.
The Energy [R]evolution scenario shows that renewable energy can provide more than half of the world’s energy needs by 2050. Developing countries can virtually stabilise their CO2 emissions, whilst at the same time increasing energy consumption through economic growth. OECD countries will be able to reduce their emissions by up to 80%.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509006302
So what it comes down to is that Lynas doesn’t agree with the conclusions, although given his terrible math in the first link above on wind power in Japan (to which he attributes to a Breakthrough Institute error), I’m not sure I’d roll with his view on that.
@8
Try not being a partisan just for once.
Also, that Think Progress screecher you link to was a typical over-the-top hyperbole fest. There was one error that Lynas owned up to and the screecher made a mountain out of it, using it as an opportunity to dismiss the whole Lynas article.
Lynas has become interesting in the way Monbiot has of late. Their willingness to revisit previously held positions and wipe some of the scales from their eyes is something you could learn from.
So the IPCC and Greenpeace have done something so egregious that even the true believers are offended. Many people like me became skeptical originally because of our life experiences. Those who have real science and real facts backing their beliefs have no need to engage in unethical behavior and no need to use propaganda techniques to promote their beliefs.
Furthermore, those who do engage in unethical behavior and who use propaganda techniques (such as half truths, misleading facts, appeals to emotion, etc.) are generally found to be doing so because they make enough money that they are willing to sacrifice their integrity to make the money.
Bit by bit the magic trees, goofy computer models, cherry picked and manipulated data will be exposed by those who care. The lack of warming for the last 10-15 years might actually be replaced by decades of cooling. Watching the alarmists figure out how to pirouette without ever admitting their complicity in this whole sorry embarrassment to real scientists will be amusing in a sad sort of way.
Keith
Here”˜s some journalisms questions and I acknowledge this is a breaking story and you want to stay non partisian. If you where the writer or editor of the following pieces how would you proceed?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/renewable-energy-un-ipcc-climate-change_n_859329.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/business/energy-environment/03iht-RBOG-Kanter03.html?_r=1
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42959237/80_of_Energy_Use_Could_be_Renewable_by_2050_UN
Originally from Reuters
Interesting that HuffPo quote Mr. Teske as Greenpeace but not a lead author or even a part of the IPCC
Interesting that Mr. Kanter add this line to the IPCC in his article.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “” the most authoritative body of experts, scientists and engineers specialized in climate change
cagw_skeptic99 #10:
The pirouette has already started.
There was a huge amount of press activity related to the sun seemingly entering a less active phase, just yesterday I think.
I saw 3 posts at WUWT on the press releases and explanations related to the sun just yesterday I think.
My guess is that the alarmist groups will simply seize on the sun to explain the lack of warming we may (probably IMO) see during solar cycle 24 and through solar cycle 25.
Of course, the sun was actually more active than normal until solar cycle 24, so the sun doesn’t explain the lack of warming over the last 10-15 years, as you point out.
If there is some warming, but less than “expected” they will also blame that on the sun (IMO).
What is funny about this (if I am correct), is that the alarmists discount the sun as an explanation for the warming over the last 150 years (it is all caused by humans and our fingerprints are everywhere, they say) – but it will be the explanation for the lack of warming or cooling (I believe).
“Lynas has become interesting in the way Monbiot has of late. Their willingness to revisit previously held positions and wipe some of the scales from their eyes is something you could learn from.”
Didn’t you just write a post about nagging?
Jeff (11),
I predict that some of those aforementioned reporters will revisit their original stories.
[…] A Deeper Look at an Energy Analysis Raises Big Questions By ANDREW C. REVKIN Steve McIntyre of Climateaudit.org has helpfully pointed out an important problem with the much publicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the role of renewable energy sources in cutting emissions of greenhouse gases in coming decades. Mark Lynas, a longtime climate campaigner and author, not only credits McIntyre for digging in, but excoriates the climate panel himself (more below). (Hat tip to Keith Kloor.) […]
KK: There was one error that Lynas owned up to and the screecher made a mountain out of it, using it as an opportunity to dismiss the whole Lynas article.
The error was huge and critical to his argument:
phasing out Japan’s current nuclear generation capacity and replacing it with wind would require a 1.3-billion-acre wind farm, covering more than half the country’s total land mass.
Million of course, and clearly covering a much smaller fraction of their land mass.
And why is it everytime I dare to reference a Romm post you seem to throw an ad hom or two at me? If you have any resembling a substantive response to my post or references, please let me know.
KK: There was one error that Lynas owned up to and the screecher made a mountain out of it, using it as an opportunity to dismiss the whole Lynas article.
I also find that statement extraordinarily ironic, btw.
Professor Jonathon Jones has offered Mark his copy of the Hockey Stick Illusion’ to read.
I asked Mark if he had read it, or heard of Judith’s challenge here at Collide a Scape for other scientists to read it..
I was surprised that he had not… but pleased to hear that he asked for a copy.
Mark also said this…
“I did side with Mike Mann on the Hockey Stick thing, without personally having the expertise to really go in and check the argument about statistical methodology. But I have to admit that McIntyre is right about this, and that I and others should have spotted the problem earlier. There should be no campaigners or anyone else with a vested interest on the “˜lead author’ team for any IPCC publication ““ ever.”
As Mark is on the advisory board of the Campaign Against Climate Change, that has a deniers Hall of Shame, and who send out sceptic alerts to activists, to target sceptical blog and newspaper comments, which have had hundreds of Bishop Hill blog posts included…… (bishop Hill being the HSI’s author)
interesting times indeed.
The 80% by 2050 claim was and is obvious nonsense.
What is vexing is that so many people are fervent defenders of the idea that renewables can significantly displace coal from the global energy mix.
What is frightening is that the IPCC is producing summaries for policly makers based on Greenpeace advocacy.
This must stop.
NewYorkJ(8)
You really want to hang your hat on a journal who’s scope is to
embraces economics, planning, politics, pricing, forecasting, investment, conservation, substitution and environment.
“¢ Energy and greenhouse gas mitigation: the IPCC Report and beyond.
“¢ Valuing the benefits of renewables.
“¢ Financing the energy sector in developing countries.
Seems to me that their mission statement is a little bias. Still they are listed on the ISI Master Journal list but then again so is E&E.
Peer Review is becoming so over rated.
Jeff Norris
NewYorkJ is a True Believer when it comes to renewables. I once spent a rather pointless couple of days discussing the realities with him. Or rather I discussed the realities and he posted up yards of hand-waving from NREL.
BBD,
Here’s the reference.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2011/03/02/where-greens-rule/
You had unsubstantiated opinions. I agree that discussing something with those who have stubborn opinions and dismiss out-of-hand all sources presented is generally not fruitful.
Jeff Norris,
What’s E&E’s impact factor these days?
NewYorkJ
Thanks for the link. You, I think, need to learn the difference between advocacy dressed up as engineering proposals and the real thing.
[…] story was quickly picked up by Mark Lynas who credited McIntyre and sharply criticized the IPCC. Keith Kloor and Andy Revkin followed with similar […]
Is this the tipping point, finally?
This fiasco just fits the IPCC pattern of convenient anti-scientific propagandizing. Recently they just pulled this rat out of the hat:
“At an IPCC meeting earlier this week, this recommendation appears to have been approved. According to page 4 of this publication, the IPCC:
In other words, screw the rules. And screw the committee that investigated the IPCC last year which insisted the rules should be followed.”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/17/ipcc-screw-the-rules/
Why would anyone take anything the IPCC says seriously? This whole project has done more damage to the credibility of real science than anything in history – and that isn’t hyperbole.
Time to pull the plug on this whole corrupt and self-serving bureaucracy.
Time to recognize the real scientific thinkers like McIntyre.
NewYorkJ (22)
Define how to determine impact.
My point however was that E&E has been charged with being an advocacy journal and I was suggesting that Energy Policy could reasonable be considered one also based on their stated scope.
Their Editor is listed as N France from the UK any idea who that is?
Also Mr. Teske CV seems to be nonexistent but is often mentioned as an expert with both 20 or 10 years experience sometimes in Nuclear or Wind or Solar and has a degree in electrical engineering but not where or when. Only thing I am really sure about is he works for Greenpeace as a Campaigner.
Define how to determine impact.
I asked a fairly straightforward question. Sorry you couldn’t answer.
My point however was that E&E has been charged with being an advocacy journal and I was suggesting that Energy Policy could reasonable be considered one also based on their stated scope.
I disagree. I think you’re interpreting the scope how you want to. E&E is a junk journal set up for those who share the same political views, as evident from the editor’s statements. Even Judith Curry agrees it’s not reliable.
Their Editor is listed as N France from the UK any idea who that is?
Also Mr. Teske CV seems to be nonexistent but is often mentioned as an expert with both 20 or 10 years experience sometimes in Nuclear or Wind or Solar and has a degree in electrical engineering but not where or when. Only thing I am really sure about is he works for Greenpeace as a Campaigner.
Teske is not on their editorial board.
NewYorkJ
“asked a fairly straightforward question. Sorry you couldn’t answer.” I wanted to agree on the criteria to prevent the moving of goal posts that both sides engage in.
I see your Curry and raise you a Lynas
Mark Lynas said today as you should know , “the Energy Efficiency one seems to be an update or something. Anyway Energy Policy is only *slightly* more reputable ““ they publish all sorts of crap, I have to say, as an occasional reader.” Energy and Efficiency was where the Greenpeace paper was originally published.
Teske was the Lead Author of the IPCC assessment that used the Greenpeace scenario which he helped write and is a Greenpeace employee, NewYorkj I thought you were up to date on the issue
I have a new post at Climate Etc. on the subject of this thread
http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/15/an-opening-mind/
I wanted to agree on the criteria to prevent the moving of goal posts that both sides engage in.
Your first criteria was ISI cited. I mentioned Impact Factor as another criteria which you keep dodging. Your next criteria was claiming the journal is an “advocacy group” based on their stated scope, which is based on a rather strange reading of it.
I see your Curry and raise you a Lynas
Mark Lynas said today as you should know , “the Energy Efficiency one seems to be an update or something. Anyway Energy Policy is only *slightly* more reputable ““ they publish all sorts of crap, I have to say, as an occasional reader.” Energy and Efficiency was where the Greenpeace paper was originally published.
That gets to one area where Lynas is wrong. He doesn’t get to determine what’s crap. He doesn’t like the fact that it was included at all, believing the renewables assessment is too optimistic. Yet even the press release he’s criticizing says it’s the most optimistic scenario. Also, when I pointed out that Lynas got wrong the land resources needed for renewable deployment in Japan by a factor of 1000, he responded with:
Yes I made an error in the LA Times piece ““ and admitted it in some detail when I realised. (Plus I would hold the IPCC to a higher standard than myself ““ I’m not peer reviewed!)
So how do we take blog posts seriously if bloggers don’t hold themselves to high standards? And how do we take Lynas’ critique (or other considerably more shrill bloggers) of the peer-reviewed study and subsequent critique of the IPCC’s use of it seriously? Seems like some want to have it both ways.
Teske was the Lead Author of the IPCC assessment that used the Greenpeace scenario which he helped write and is a Greenpeace employee, NewYorkj I thought you were up to date on the issue
You were going off about Energy Policy’s editors, seeming to confuse the two. Teske is indeed one of more than 20 lead authors of the summary section. Richard Lindzen was once an oil industry contractor, and IPCC lead author, on sections that referenced his work. Funny though, those other 20 or so co-lead authors actually have a say. That’s what ultimately ticked off Lindzen.
NewYorkJ
We are drifting from the original question. So I will rephrase. Do you feel that Energy Policy is a reputable journal and if so on what basis?
Don’t want to continue to get sidetracked but I agree that E&E’s editor has a stated bias, that was why I was interested in who the editor was for Energy Policy is.
cagw_skeptic99 #10:
I agree 100%. Every word.
RickA #12:
Yes the pirouette. One point regarding solar cycles 21, 22, 23 and 24 though. Solar sycle 23 was already weaker (longer – ~12 years) than solar sycles 21 and 22 (~10 years long). My opinion is that short SC 21 and 22 were the main cause of the late 20th century warming. SC 20 (I think almost ~12 years, 1970s) was weak so it is plausible. Before that, SC 15 – 18 were all ~10 years long (early 20th century warming).
Anyway, I am waiting for the consensus scientists to re-estimate “climate sensitivity”.
We are drifting from the original question. So I will rephrase. Do you feel that Energy Policy is a reputable journal and if so on what basis?
Yes. ISI-cited, decent Impact Factor, and no particular objective reason to believe they aren’t.
zeke
“Actually, reading deeper into the report, it looks like they choose the Teske et al scenario as one of the four illustrative scenarios in Chapter 10. Ugh. Its the SRES B2 silliness all over again”¦”
yup.
. NewYorkJ
Okay now we are getting somewhere. Will you take SCImago Journal Rank as a valid indicator or are we constrained to Reuters?
NewYorkj
Forgot to ask what an objective reason to believe would be.
I would guess criticism from other authorities or number of correction. I am trying to nail you down but also willing to keep an open mind.
Jeff,
If you had an open mind on the topic, you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the journal without any reasonable basis or object criteria, which you’ve admitted you don’t have. I’m not going to bother setting that up for you. You stated the journal is not reliable. State your case, clearly and concisely.
NewYorkJ
See my original comment 20. I based it solely on their mission statement and did say seems a little bias.
That was one of the reasons I was interested in who the Editor is. Essentially if sheor he(still don’t know) has made statements, holds positions or advocated similar to Sonja_Boehmer-Christiansen would that be an objective criticism of the journal.
Do you think their stated scope sounds a little bias? Substitute the green buzz words for pro fossil fuel ones and would you feel comfortable with this Journal.
“¢ Energy and Mineral Exploration: the IPCC Report and beyond.
“¢ Valuing the benefits of Fossil Fuels.
“¢ Financing the Nuclear energy sector in developing countries.
I willing to set up an objective criteria and am more than willing to abide by it, all I ask is that we agree on the rules. I am more than willing to admit that E&E has no IF on ISI that’s why we have to find one that rates both journals and then perhaps to agree on 2 other small journals unrelated to Climate Change that is rated by both systems to see how consistent the rating systems are.
KK: Lynas has become interesting in the way Monbiot has of late. Their willingness to revisit previously held positions and wipe some of the scales from their eyes is something you could learn from.
Interestingly, here’s a pretty harsh Monbiot critique of some of Lynas’ claims from November.
This one was presented by two people who still consider themselves green: Stewart Brand and Mark Lynas. It’s not as rabid as the other films. But, like its predecessors, it airs blatant falsehoods about environmentalists and fits snugly into the corporate agenda.
http://www.monbiot.com/2010/11/05/deep-peace-in-techno-utopia/
So maybe Monbiot needs some “learning” too or something, at least until he reaches the Keith/Pielkian/Breakthrough stage of complete enlightenment.
One thing I agree with both of them on is that nuclear power environmental risks are often greatly overstated by certain groups (even if understated by others).
Jeff,
Perhaps you should read a few studies from the journal. For example, you site “valuing the benefits of renewable energy” as an example of bias, as if costs are not addressed, or a pro-renewable slant is consistently present. A cursory browsing of their volumes indicates otherwise:
Reconsidering solar grid parity
Grid parity”“reducing the cost of solar energy to be competitive with conventional grid-supplied electricity”“has long been hailed as the tipping point for solar dominance in the energy mix. Such expectations are likely to be overly optimistic. A realistic examination of grid parity suggests that the cost-effectiveness of distributed photovoltaic (PV) systems may be further away than many are hoping for. Furthermore, cost-effectiveness may not guarantee commercial competitiveness.
Market behaviour with large amounts of intermittent generation
This paper evaluates the impact of intermittent wind generation on hourly equilibrium prices and output, using data on expected wind generation capacity and demand for 2020. Hourly wind data for the period 1993″“2005 are used to obtain wind output generation profiles for thirty regions (onshore and offshore) across Great Britain. Matching the wind profiles for each month to the actual hourly demand (scaled to possible 2020 values), we find that the volatility of prices will increase, and that there is significant year-to-year variation in generators’ profits.
Similarly, “Energy and greenhouse gas mitigation: the IPCC Report and beyond” does not imply a stance on mitigation, only that the journal publishes studies on the topic.
More important than conclusions or perceived slant of the various studies published there would be evaluation of whether or not the conclusions derive from the evidence, which is another undertaking. At any rate, if you believe the journal is biased or unreliable, I think you need a much better case.
NewYorkJ
With all due respect I think you are now changing your very own criteria. “Yes. ISI-cited, decent Impact Factor, and no particular objective reason to believe they aren’t.” You suggest I read the journal but that would be somewhat of a subjective opinion based on whether I agree with the articles conclusion or methods. You suggested E&E was disreputable and justified it in part by using Curry. If she has a negative opinion of EP would that sway you or would you brush that opinion off?
I agree that I am making a subjective opinion based on their mission statement that is why I want to agree on a more objective (3rd party) test. You early seemed to value the IF which I concede is a good indicator, do you have an objection to SCImago journal ratings?
Jeff,
With all due respect, I was specifically addressing your own faulty reasoning in #38 for believing the journal is biased or not reputable, of which I’ve done sufficiently. Perhaps you should address that.
NewYorkJ
The failure to communicate is probably my fault, we seem to get sidetracked and I have difficulty keeping up.
I think I have already admitted my view is subjected and biased; and based on my reading of their mission statement. In comment 33 I felt you were basing your opinion of EP on these criteria
“ISI-cited, decent Impact Factor, and no particular objective reason to believe they aren’t”
I then tried to “nail you down” on using the IF of SCImago because I don’t have access to Reuters and I also wanted to clarify what you would consider objective reason. If you feel an individual’s review of an article is an objective reason I must disagree. Consider for a moment if 1 out of 3 peer reviewers of a paper has harsh criticism of it while the other 2 have few if any. Does that mean the other 2 reviewers are idiots, biased or just lazy? Additionally what does it mean when an editor goes to a fourth reviewer and he has no problem with the paper or does not have the same concerns as the harsh reviewer? Does that now reflect badly on the harsh critic?
I must admit that I ignored comment 37. Where you refused to set up a mutually agreeable criteria, I thought you were speaking in haste or anger. Is that your final position?
Well, just so I can say Teske, tsk, tsk, I’ll add that we don’t know how much renewable energy can contribute as a percentage to future energy requirements because we’re still kidding ourselves about future energy needs. I think the DOE and UN are both estimating about 675 quads for 2035 (give or take–can’t be bothered to look it up right now), but it’s pretty clear that given population increase and development it’s going to be quite a bit more.
I actually think solar can scale up. Right now in California, 12,000 households a month are putting panels on their roofs. I also think that we will bite the bullet on nuclear and move forward–at least in China and Korea.
So I think you could make a case for something like 17% of the DOE and UN estimates. But I think it’s a far lower percentage of what the real world needs are going to be.
As for the IPCC, following their recent announcements about closed review and admission of grey literature, it’s pretty clear that it’s becoming a closed shop that will be issuing reports to the faithful. If the faithful include government decision makers, there will be some very poor decisions made.
We’re going to look back on the FAR and call it the good ol’ days.
This is about “what-if” scenario’s and energy visions for the future. There are other highly regarded reports out there that envision 80% renewables by 2050.
What gets hidden out of sight in this discussion is that it’s ultimately a choice: We could if we wanted to. That the political and societal will is currently lacking is evident, so call it unrealistic if you want. It’s still a choice and that’s worth highlighting.
“Those who want search for a way. Those who don’t want search for a reason.”
“We could if we wanted to”
At what price, Bart? It’s not just a question of political will; It’s a question of economics and how we best spend limited resources. We could also embark on a mission to Jupiter – we could if we wanted to.
“it’s ultimately a choice”
Yes, if we spend our resources on 80% renewables, those resources won’t be available for other purposes – fighting poverty and disease for example. And we’ll have fewer resources moving forward to pull the developed world out of poverty.
We need not only a reason, but a darn good one.
kdk33, seriously. How much are we spending fighting poverty and disease, and how much on dropping bombs on mostly impoverished, disease-stricken countries?
There is a case to be made that moving to 80% renewables would be costly. Absolutely. But using economic development and health assistance as a reason not to is just silly.
And if you want a reason, look where most of our current wars are being fought, and what countries we give military aid to. If we weren’t dependent on oil, imagine what resources would be available for renewable energy research, economic and health aid… and tax cuts.
PDA,
I said nothing about current spending on anything…
You miss my point. 80% renewables will be very expensive. Our resources are limited and could be spent on other things. If fighting poverty and disease are not your thing, then just insert your favorite alternative use.
If the developed world is forced to use more expensive energy, I think the effect is self-evident.
Yes, I’m aware of the energy security angle and I don’t buy it. Two quick comments: the fastest path to energy security is drill-here-drill-now. If we stopped buying oil from unsavory governments, what would happen to those governments? Oil is completely fungible. (NG not so mucy, but OTOH, we seem to be suddenly swimming in it, except in New York).
Interestingly (in rough numbers), Canada and Mexico are our largest Oil suppliers, accoutning for about 35%.
Of the middle eastern countires: Saudi Arabia get about 12%; Iraq about 6%, Kuwait about 2%.
Other notables: Venzuela and Nigeria come in at about 11%,
Everybody else is pretty much peanuts.
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Bart conflates the quite dissimilar political and societal wills. Political will requires a majority for action. Societal will does not.
Governments could be helpful, but often even activist governments are not. In either case, the task doesn’t really require much government action at all. Societal will, the free association of people in the pursuit of happiness, is there for the taking. In the inspirational words of President Obama, we are the people we’ve been waiting for.
Jeff (#43),
The discussion has become tedious. You haven’t supported your position that EP is unreliable and I think I’ve addressed your argument directly, so I’d rather move on. If you can come up with additionall arguments on the matter, I’m open to reading them.
Bart,
My gripe with the Teske scenario isn’t the 80% renewable number per se. While I think such a large percent in 40 years is highly unlikely, its not completely outside the realm of possibility assuming rapid technological innovation and political will.
What I do find silly are:
1) The assumption that global energy use will be the same in 2030 as today and actually shrink 20% from 2010 levels by 2050.
2) The assumption that we can achieve 80% renewables while phasing out all nuclear generation by 2045 and not employing any carbon capture and storage.
3) The assumption that we will have a (presumably global) price on carbon starting in 2010.
If the IPCC had included a more realistic 80% renewables scenario as one of their reference scenarios, I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with it, provided they included a realistic discussion of the difficulty in meeting such targets.
I’ve posted a couple of responses – one from Teske and one from the WG3 co-chair (h/t revkin):
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/#comment-1927
While journalists/bloggers might hide behind the “well everyone else does this” line, Lynas, Revkin, etc. all jumped the shark, creating a narrative without gathering adequate information. Perhaps that’s why deniers are trying to “recruit” Lynas as one of theirs.
Zeke: My gripe with the Teske scenario isn’t the 80% renewable number per se. While I think such a large percent in 40 years is highly unlikely, its not completely outside the realm of possibility assuming rapid technological innovation and political will.
Wasn’t a point of the Teske scenario that it required political will to implement? I’m personally skeptical that political will is going to be there for that aggressive of a cut on a worldwide basis, and eliminating nuclear from the mix makes it that much harder. But I also think the political barriers vastly exceed the technological ones.
Also, from what I understand, CC&S has some of the steepest technological barriers.
Well, if you redefine political will to be equivalent to unanimous consent to incredible changes for the developed world and abandonment of development dreams by the rest, then yeah–it’s just a matter of political will.
NewYorkJ
I understand your frustration but you refused to give me terms to make my case. First I agreed on your general criteria for determining a reputable journal.
ISI-cited, decent Impact Factor, and no particular objective reason to believe they aren’t.
I also agreed that E&E is suspect or disreputable. So the next step is to use your criteria to compare them. They both are listed on ISI. Next step is to look at IF. I asked if you would accept the IF from SCImago. You never responded. I also asked what would be the criteria to determine an objective reason to consider a journal disreputable, again you never responded.
NewYorkJ essentially when I asked for specific, measurable, objective means to determine if a journal is disreputable you balked. I have no problem making a case against EP but you refuse to tell me exactly what you considerer compelling or even acceptable evidence. IMHO you are not moving goalposts but refuse to tell me where or if the goalposts exist. If you just want to argue ad infinitum that is fine for you but pointless IMO.
Overall I found our conversation very educational and I sincerely thank you for your time.
Zeke,
I agree that it’s not wise to put a rather unrealistic scenario forward as an example in the spotlights. My point is not so much to argue how silly vs wise, or how realistic vs unrealistic is it, but rather to distinguish that which is technically possible from what is societally and politically realistic. David Keith made some pertinent comments to this:
The extent to which energy efficiency and energy saving will be pursued is central to both energy demand (Zeke) and the costs (kdk33).
Also on that front there is a choice:
Use less energy (cheaper, but requires some behavioral change)
or
Pay more for sustainable energy (no behavioral change required but more expensive)
In many energy visions for the future (eg WEO, ECF roadmap) global energy demand is increasing much less than in BAU and macro-economic effects are minimal, because they envision high percentages of energy efficiency/saving (~2% per year). That keeps the costs down. It conflicts however with reality, where it’s been shown that energy savings can only very marginally be influenced by policies. People seem to prefer to pay more (ie use more energy) than to forego a portion of their energy use.
That’s their perogative of course, but it means that a complaint about “it’s so expensive” is void at that moment: You made the choice to spend the money rather than to save it. You did have a choice.
Energy saving is central to this discussion and on a more abstract level is the fact that we have a choice.
It is getting interesting!.
See Mark’s Lynas’ latest response…… I think Jo Romm has got to him
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/
Mark Lynas: That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a “˜denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively led astray by him.
Mark Lynas: Well, if 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’.
The Economist has a blog post (H/T Bishop Hill) that with a little editing to tone a feeling of frustration and or bias would make a great hard news story.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace#comment-950529