Der Spiegel reports here (Bloggers accuse IPCC of conflicts of interests) on Climategate 2.0, where the IPCC just published a huge new report on renewable energy, claiming that within 40 years nearly 80% of the world’s energy needs could be met, mostly through a massive expansion of wind and solar power. The report, it turns out, was hardly scientific, and was based a lot on a paper co-authored by an employee (Sven Teske) of Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council.It means the report’s main message came from a full-time environmental activist and that the data underpinning the science was hardly more than a load of activism, and not real data.
Like much climate scandal news, it first got media traction in the Anglo-regions of the world. Now some of the German media are timidly weighing in. Der Spiegel writes:
So far the debate has made waves in the Anglo-Saxon media. That is probably due to the fact that the first to have noticed the possible conflict of interest is Steve McIntyre. The Canadian is considered as one of the main critics of the established climate sciences. Last week he let loose at his climate blog Climateaudit.org, and spoke of “Greenpeace-Karaoke” in the IPCC report.”
IPCC Report “completely without partisanship”
Much of McIntyre’s critic was aimed at Sven Teske of Greenpeace and Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), who is also co-chairman of the WG3 of the IPCC. But Edenhofer has defended the report in comments to Der Spiegel. Der Spiegel writes:
The climate-economist told SPIEGEL ONLINE he defends the entire report. It is “balanced” and referees the state of scientific knowledge ‘without any partisanship’. He points out that the now much criticized study was subjected to ‘a strict scientific reveiw process’. The underlying assumptions of the concerned study have been clearly named. Moreover the IPCC-Report did not ‘present any special report about renewable energies as being predominant’.”
As a blogger that follows German developments in climate science and politics, it is well known that the cast of characters at the PIK, including Edenhofer himself, are often more than loose with the truth. The PIK is well-known for its activism, let alone its shady brand of science.
But that doesn’t stop Der Spiegel from presenting a defence for Edenhofer and the report, writing that Edenhofer has a point, and even admitted that the costs of renewable energies are fraught with uncertainties, also see original Der Spiegel story .
Teske also offered a defence, telling Der Spiegel that he was not involved in writing up the press release itself. Der Spiegel quotes Teske:
I first saw it when it was presented the first time at the press conference in Abu Dhabi.”
Teske adds he doesn’t see any problem being involved it the report, claiming that representatives of the US fossil fuels and nuclear industry were there too. Der Spiegel adds:
Greenpeace represents 3 million member worldwide. ‘Why shouldn’t we be involved in such a report?’, asks Teske.”
Der Spiegel then ends the piece by writing about the new IPCC codex that was agreed on, and quotes the last sentence that appears:
To prevent situations in which a conflict of interest may arise, individuals directly involved in or leading the preparation of IPCC reports should avoid being in a position to approve, adopt, or accept on behalf of any government the text in which he/she was directly involved.”