My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Another biased IPCC report: This time Greenpeace wrote the report!

I think we need a tad bit of reform on the IPCC...
The world's foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world's energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Critics said the decision to highlight the 77 per cent figure showed a bias within the IPCC against promoting potentially carbon-neutral energies such as nuclear fuel. One climate change sceptic said it showed the body was not truly independent and relied too heavily on green groups for its evidence.

The allegations are particularly damaging as they represent the second controversy to hit the IPPC in a matter of years. In 2009, a tranche of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit were leaked two weeks before the crucial Copenhagen climate summit. Climate change sceptics said they showed scientists manipulating data to talk up the threat of global warming, as well as trying to suppress their critics.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

The IPCC press release clearly stated that the 77% represented the most optimistic scenario. It also stated that, depending on the assumptions made it could be as low as 15% (which is only slightly higher than it is now) so I don't see what the problem is.

In regards to nuclear, again they clearly said they were looking at renewable sources. I tend to think that nuclear should be a component of the mix of energy sources, but it is not renewable.

So I really can't see what they said that was so wrong!

John Cross

10:23 AM  
Blogger OddSox said...

The original press release ( did not say anything about the alternate scenarios. It's only now that the background of the report is released that they are mentioning any of the other information.

10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oddsox: Two things. First, the press release you linked to was produced by something called Energy Blueprint. By calling that the original press release you are saying that Energy Blueprint is the same as the IPCC. Do you have anything to back that statement up?

Second, the IPCC press release is dated May 9, 2011. Where is the original press release, I would like to see specifically where this one was change.

Fred: It appears that your issue is with the press or environmental groups and not the IPCC. So any chance of correcting your headline?


12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the new subtle inserts to the latest report is that Volcano's add a big portion of the problem but it still ties in how we are causing the volcanos as the Earth changes from Global warming.
But NASA has posted the facts on how the SUN is in a high Solar-Flux mode and solar flares have been heating up Mars as well and there are NO suv's on mars .

5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: I don't know your sources, but the most recent information about volcanoes is this report which still states that anthropogenic output for 3 or 4 days is the same as annual volcanic output. This number has not changes in the last 10 years (at least).

I could not find a reference for your other statement about high Solar-Flux mode. Do you have a reference? Thanks.

Fred: still no retraction I see. Just out of curiosity, why do you not feel a need to retract the statement? Is there something in the IPCC report that I am missing or it is more of an "I am never wrong" type of thing?


9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No need to change the headline . The point of concern being what role does an activist play in what is supposed to be a scientific study.


10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hammerfan: I disagree. I don't care who writes the report as long as the science stands up.

My objection is that the headline states that the report is biased as a fact with only supposition to support it.


10:56 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home