Josh (Cartoons by Josh) tells the story of the week in pictures.
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.
However, as Christopher Booker pointed out it..
…reads less like a scientific document and more like a propaganda puff for the world’s renewable industries.
…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…
Curiosity by Steve McIntyre uncovered some important background on the authorship of the report -
Should this be a worry? Well, as James Delingpole puts it -
Putting a guy from Greenpeace in charge of writing the supposedly neutral, scientifically-based report on which governments are going to base their energy policy is like putting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in charge of a report entitled Whither Israel?
Environmentalist Mark Lynas’ picked up on it too and called ‘foul’, commenting
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’.
which made him “the sceptics’ new best friend”
This bemused Mark greatly, since he still believes…
….this in no way undermines my commitment to phasing out fossil fuels in order to urgently tackle global warming.
Despite the new IPCC conflict of interest policy (as quoted by Mark)…
The individual and the IPCC should not be placed in a situation that could lead a reasonable person to question, and perhaps discount or dismiss, the work of the IPCC simply because of the existence of a conflict of interest.
… the implacable IPCC Chairman Dr Pachauri sailed on declaring it a non-issue. As reported here, when asked if he thought there is an implicit endorsement in having Greenpeace on this IPCC stage, he replied:
Not really. I don’t see why.
I can share the stage with the devil.
I wonder if that last sentence might not come back to haunt him.