Industry lobbyists behind ‘scientific’ claims in IPCC press release
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Translation by Autumnson Blog
The entire world will soon depend on renewable energy so governments ought to start subsidizing these industries immediately. So said the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a report released Tuesday. The study’s conclusion was such a blockbuster that the panel issued a press release last month previewing the finding. “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 a new report shows,” it proclaimed.
整個世界將很快要依靠可再生能源,因此各國政府必須立即地啟動補貼這些行業,聯合國政府間氣候變化專門委員會(IPCC)在週二公佈的一份報告這樣說。研究的結論是這樣的一個重磅炸彈,小組上月發表一份新聞稿預覽所發現的。 “世界能源供應接近80%在本世紀中葉是可由再生能源達到,如果輔以一份新報告所顯示的正確公共政策,”它宣告。
Since this statement was supposedly based on actual scientific research, Steve McIntyre, editor of the Climate Audit blog, did what the IPCC must have assumed nobody would bother doing. He checked the sources cited in the report. He discovered the IPCC’s banner claim was not the work of prestigious and disinterested scientists toiling away in a laboratory, but of hacks with a political agenda and direct financial stake in the issue.
The 80 percent claim was lifted directly from a paper entitled, “Energy evolution 2010 – a Sustainable World Energy Outlook,” whose primary authors included Sven Teske from Greenpeace and Christine Lins from the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC). According to the latter group’s website, it is “the united voice of the European renewable energy industry.” EREC speaks on behalf of the companies that make windmills, solar panels and other uneconomic forms of energy that rely upon heavy government subsidies to turn a profit. Not surprisingly, the IPCC’s primary goal has been to browbeat governments around the world into pouring taxpayer cash into this rent-seeking industry.
80%的聲稱已被直接從一份文件取消,題為“能源發展 2010 - 一個可持續世界的能源展望”,它的主要作者包括來自綠色和平的斯文特斯克和來自歐洲可再生能源理事會(EREC)的基斯汀林斯。根據後者組織的網站,它是歐洲可再生能源產業的“團結聲音。”EREC代表製造風力發電、太陽能電池板和其它非經濟形式的能源的公司說話,大力依賴政府的補貼轉虧為盈。毫不奇怪,IPCC的主要目標一直是嚇唬全世界的各國政府,把納稅人的現金澆灌到這尋租的行業。
In addition to being the source of the 80 percent claim, the Greenpeace activist also happened to be a primary author of the relevant chapter of the new IPCC report, “Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation” (SRREN). The incestuous relationship is not limited to Mr. Teske. Greenpeace and the renewable-energy lobby jointly released a version of the “Energy evolution” report that contained a forward by Rajendra K. Pachauri, the IPCC’s director general.
The IPCC sees nothing wrong with this arrangement. “The IPCC relies on a wide range of expertise including authors from the business sector as well as from NGOs and academia,” IPCC spokesman Rockaya Aidara told The Washington Times. “Sven Teske is one of nine lead authors of Chapter 10 of the SRREN. Two coordinating lead authors have overseen the process of writing this chapter. It was a balanced team work with different views and expertises represented.”

Claims of balance are hardly credible when the process is infiltrated by ideologues and industry insiders looking to apply the veneer of science to their craven grab for other people’s cash. Fortunately, the days when leftists could get away with passing off their global-warming scare stories unchallenged are over. Skeptics smell blood and closely examine every document, frequently identifying gaping holes in logic and credibility.

That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency needs to pull the plug on the job-crushing cap-and-trade style regulations it seeks to impose. The agency based the whole of its “endangerment finding” on the work of IPCC, as if it were scientific. It would be more honest for the EPA to say its rules are based on the desire of Greenpeace and the renewable-energy industry to raise taxes on competing sources of electricity. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this fraud.


The IPCC declares Greenpeace in our time
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is packed with even more hot air than usual, says Christopher Booker
y Christopher Booker
7:30PM BST 18 Jun 2011
Translation by Autumnson Blog
Green and unpleasant: Fullabrook Down in north Devon will soon host the largest onshore wind farm in Europe Photo: APEX
綠色和不愉快:在北德文郡的Fullabrook下即將舉辦歐洲最大的陸上風電場 照片:APEX

What is the link between a beautiful stretch of north Devon countryside, the brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, and that ever more curious body, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? The starting point for teasing out this riddle is a hefty new report just published by the IPCC on renewable energy. This has engulfed the IPCC in controversy yet again, after a preview of the report made headlines by claiming that, within 40 years, nearly 80 per cent of the world's energy needs could be met from renewable sources, most notably through a massive expansion of wind and solar power.

What only came to light when the full report was published last week was the peculiar source of this extraordinarily ambitious claim. It was based solely on a paper co-authored last year by an employee of Greenpeace International and something called the European Renewable Energy Council. This Brussels-based body, heavily funded by the EU, lobbies the European Commission on behalf of all the main renewable industries, such as wind and solar. The chief author of the Greenpeace paper, Sven Teske, was also a lead author on Chapter 10 of the IPCC report, which means that the report's headline message came from a full-time environmental activist, supported by a lobby group representing those industries that stand most to benefit financially from its findings.
Not surprisingly, expert critics of the IPCC have been quick to point out how this seems to reinforce the revelations 18 months ago, which did more to discredit the UN body's authority than anything in its history. At the centre of those scandals was the discovery that the more alarming predictions made by the IPCC's major 2007 report – such as a claim that most of the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 – were not based on proper science at all. They were simply scare stories originating from environmentalist lobby groups, used in a way that broke all the IPCC's own rules, which insist that its reports should be based only on properly accredited scientific studies.

Adding to this was the unfavourable publicity also directed at that time at the IPCC's chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. Yet in the preface to this new report, he is given special thanks for all he did to bring it about. Not only that – he also wrote an introduction to the controversial Greenpeace paper on which its headline claim was based.

As the IPCC's supposedly impartial chairman, and arguably the world's most influential public official, Dr Pachauri – whose Delhi-based research institute is heavily involved in various renewable energy projects – has also written forewords to two earlier Greenpeace publications.

So preoccupied have the sceptics been by the questionable provenance of the IPCC's new report, however, that they have not yet focused on what is, arguably, an even greater scandal. This is the astonishingly one-sided nature of the rest of the report, which reads less like a scientific document and more like a propaganda puff for the world's renewable industries.

A long chapter on wind energy, for instance, brushes aside some of the more peripheral objections raised to wind turbines, such as that they kill vast numbers of birds and bats, or have a damaging effect on house prices. And in all its 108 pages, there is no real attempt to address the central objection to wind turbines, which is that they are a ludicrously inefficient and expensive way to produce electricity – so unreliable, due to the intermittency of the wind, that the derisory amount of power they produce can make no significant contribution to meeting the world's energy needs.

Nowhere does the report properly address the major defect of these turbines, that they only generate, on average, 25 per cent or less of their nominal capacity. The figures the report gives for this, in a brief passage that skirts round the issue, are absurdly exaggerated. It claims that US turbines achieve 30 per cent of their capacity, without pointing out that the output of all 12,000 turbines in America equates on average to no more than that of two large coal-fired power stations. And nowhere does the chapter mention the mind-boggling cost of these machines, which no one would dream of building without the aid of subsidies that in Britain amount to 100 per cent of the value of the electricity they produce (and 200 per cent for offshore turbines).

Step out of this foetid IPCC hothouse into the real world and consider what is going on at Fullabrook Down in north Devon, where they are constructing what will soon be the largest onshore wind factory in England. The developers boast of how the 22 giant 3MW turbines they are building on the hills between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe, at a cost of more than £60 million, will have the "capacity" to generate 66MW of electricity, and how they will contribute £100,000 a year to "community projects" to buy off the hostility of local residents.

In reality, this wind farm's output is not likely to average more than 16.5MW, or 25 per cent of its capacity (the average output of UK turbines last year was only 21 per cent), an amount so pitifully small that it represents barely 2 per cent of the output of a medium-sized gas-fired power station. Yet for this, the developers can hope to earn £13 million a year, of which £6.5 million will be subsidy and of which the £100,000 they hand back to the local community will represent well under 1 per cent.

Another of the scores of sites across Britain where wind farm plans are now arousing huge anger and unhappiness among locals is the Althorp estate in Northamptonshire, where Earl Spencer is hoping that a French company, EDF, will be allowed to spend £2.5 million to erect 13 2MW turbines, towering 385ft over the Vale of Avon Dassett. These will provide their owners with subsidies of around £650,000 a year, for producing a quantity of power so small that its fluctuating contribution to the grid will scarcely register. Compare this to the nearly 900MW output of the £400 million gas-fired power station recently opened near Plymouth and it can be seen that the capital cost of these wind farms, for the puny amount of electricity they produce, is around 10 times as much. The expense of the Welsh Assembly's £2 billion plan to build 800 turbines, up to 415ft high, across a vast stretch of mid-Wales, plus 100 miles of pylons to connect them to the grid, will be a staggering 15 times higher than would be needed to produce the same amount of power from gas, without subsidy.

These are the kind of hard facts that appear nowhere in the IPCC's latest propaganda exercise. Its only purpose is to provide politicians, such as our Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, with a piece of paper they can wave to claim that their dreams of covering the Earth with wind turbines have been fully vindicated by "the world's top climate scientists".

Our Government, supported by virtually all our politicians, hopes to see us spend £100 billion on wind turbines in the next nine years. Even if this was practically achievable, it would necessitate building a score of gas-fired power stations just to provide instant back-up for whenever the wind failed to blow at the correct speeds. These would have to be kept spinning all the time, wholly negating any theoretical reduction in Britain's emissions of CO2.

Truly, this infatuation with the chimera of wind power ranks alongside the creation of the collapsing euro as one of the supreme follies of our age. It is, of course, delightful that Dr Pachauri's latest effort should coincide with those warnings from an array of US scientists that the current dramatic decline in solar activity might herald the approach of a "mini-ice age". But as the great global warming scare continues to fade away, the real problem is that our politicians have so much collective ego invested in this delusion that, even when hell freezes over, they will still find it impossible to admit they got it wrong.