This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
There is a new development in the story of the IPCC renewables energy report, now that the full version of the report has been released yesterday, June 14th.
steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit blog was curious about the claim in the press release that accompanied the "Summary for Policymakers" version of the report that up to 80% of the world's energy could be supplied by renewable energy by mid-century.`After checking the report it turns out the 80% figure actually comes from Greenpeace.
McIntyre suggests that the IPCC working group should be scrapped:
"The public and policy-makers are starving for independent and authoritative analysis of precisely how much weight can be placed on renewables in the energy future. It expects more from IPCC WG3 than a karaoke version of Greenpeace scenario.
It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables.
Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."
Prominent British Greenie Mark Lynas (one of the estranged nuclear power-supporting Greenies like James Lovelock and George Monbiot) thinks that the incident is potentially more damaging than 'Glaciergate' (the controversy where the Himalayas were supposed to be going to lose their snow cover by 2035).
"That release of the full report happened yesterday. And 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."
Much more here http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/6/16/ideological-money-laundering.html