FN’s Klimapanel i ny skandale

Diverse — Drokles on June 17, 2011 at 8:09 am

FN’s Klimapanel har været under stigende pres, som følge af en lang række skandaler, hvor forudsigelser om regnskovens overlevelse, afrikansk høstudbytte, smetningen af Himalayas gletchere, estimater af Hollands nuværende og fremtidige landmasse, fabrikeringen af en global temperaturkurve (ishockeystav-grafen), brug af grå litteratur/referencer, hvilket vil sige ikke-videnskabeligt materiale osv. Og nu er endnu en skandale under opsejling.

Tidligere på året konkluderede FN’s Klimapanel at verden kunne få dækket op mod 80% af sit energibehov gennem vedvarende energi (høste vinden, malke havet og slikke Solen), hvilket selvfølgelig skabte overskrifter i de fleste medier og satte pres på politikerne til at vedtage endnu mere omkostningsfuldt idoti. Forleden blev rapporten bag den uhyrlige påstand så endelig frigivet og det har vist sig som mere end det blålys man er kommet til at forvente. At muligheden for at få dækket op til 80% af verdens energibehov af vedvarende energi er det mest urealistiske af en række tænkte scenarier, som bygger på at vi blot sætter enegibehovet langt nok ned, er pinligt i sig selv. Hvad værre er den del af rapporten, som FN’s Klimapanel med formand Panchauri spidsen har godkendt og promoveret grundlæggende er skrevet af Greenpeace. Og det er meget alvorligt især for en organisation, der hævder at repræsentere konsensus. Mark Lynas skriver

Here’s what happened. The 80% by 2050 figure was based on a scenario, so Chapter 10 of the full report reveals, called ER-2010, which does indeed project renewables supplying 77% of the globe’s primary energy by 2050. The lead author of the ER-2010 scenario, however, is a Sven Teske, who should have been identified (but is not) as a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace International. Even worse, Teske is a lead author of the IPCC report also – in effect meaning that this campaigner for Greenpeace was not only embedded in the IPCC itself, but was in effect allowed to review and promote his own campaigning work under the cover of the authoritative and trustworthy IPCC. A more scandalous conflict of interest can scarcely be imagined.

The ER-2010 study would count for me as ‘grey literature’, despite being published in a minor journal called Energy Efficiency (link to PDF here). This is because it was initially written as a propaganda report by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council – the latter are are of course enthusiasts for renewable energy’s prospects because they make money from selling wind turbines and solar panels, so hardly count as an unbiased source. It is sadly ironic that the original ‘Himalayagate’ IPCC error was the result of an uncritical reliance on exactly this kind of campaigning ‘grey literature’. Then, however, the mistake was deeply buried in the report. This time, it was used to headline the entire thing – and the source was not obvious to media at the time because the full report was not even released. So the ’80% by 2050? headlines were repeated far and wide with no-one realising their original true source.

Bishop Hill gennemgår sammenfaldet af politiske og økonomiske interesser mellem EU, NGO’er, industrien og FN’s Klimapanel

Many have questioned the IPCC’s credibility for having allowed an NGO with such a naked political agenda as Greenpeace to influence its statements and advice. But the problem here is far deeper. Trade associations are not only lobbying for their members’ interests, they are being paid to lobby the EU to lobby in favour of the policies the EU has already determined it wants. It pays them also to set the parameters of its policies, and to suggest means by which they can be delivered. At the same time, the EREC publishes research which benefits the EU’s preferred policies at the global, intergovernmental level. And this research seemingly has the backing of a non-governmental organisation, Greenpeace, which prides itself on taking no money from business or government.

The next question to ask is this… Can an organisation that represents commercial enterprises really offer governmental organisations impartial policy advice? Imagine the furore that would ensue, were oil companies so instrumental in the design of EU policies and their implementation. Lobbying is one thing; such proximity to policy-making is quite another.

(…)

The lines between governments, companies, trades associations, ‘non-governmental’ organisations such as Greenpeace, and supranational organisations such as the IPCC under the FCCC are now fully blurred. A greedy ecosystem of organisations have been created across the EU, each with the appearance of independence, working in cahoots with radical environmental NGOs and governments. Yet few, if any, of these organisations offer accounts of their funding sources, let alone explain what kind of organisation they are: how accountable they are, how independent from government they are, and who they really represent. It is as if no membrane delimits their functions from the functioning of the state, except to conceal its operations.

So where does that leave the report from Greenpeace and the EREC? Greenpeace are proud of their independence from government and industry. Yet here we see them working with a trade association in the development of advice to policy-makers that will benefit that industry. The advice it produces will further the agendas of those policy-makers. The suggestion here is not that money has changed hands — Greenpeace doesn’t need the money; what  it gets for the favours it does the establishment is influence. The service it provides is to give government-funded, agenda-ridden ‘research’ the superficial appearance of independence and legitimacy: ideological money-laundering. It makes clean the millions of Euros of public money given to the renewable energy sector for its PR.

It is no surprise that the EU and governments, spurious quasi-autonomous organisations and NGOs are in cahoots. It has long been known that organisations such as Friends of the Earth and WWF are paid by the EU to lobby the EU in favour of the policies that the EU wants. And it is no surprise that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes research that benefits the agendas of governments. We all knew this much.

What is surprising is the sheer scale of this shameless enterprise. We all knew that ‘grey literature’ — non-scientific and non-peer reviewed ‘research’ — found its way into IPCC reports. What surprises is the extent to which ‘grey organisations’ — para-govermental institutions with public functions, but little or no democratic accountability or transparency — are involved in the production of policy and evidence-making, benefitting a narrow industrial sector and serving a particular political agenda.

Presset på klimapanelet var allerede til at tage og føle på. William Pentman, der selv mener at mennesket er ved at skabe klimaulykker for os selv gennem udledning af CO2 appelerede i Forbes forrige uge at klimapanelet skulle reoganisere sig for at undgå yderligere at skade sig selv og sin sag.

The climate-gate controversy created by ethical improprieties of climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in England has created a crisis of confidence among Republicans and other political conservatives in the United States.

Rather than instituting “shock and awe” reforms to restore its credibility, the IPCC appears to have unintentionally widened the gulf of understanding between a large portion of the American public and many of the world’s most talented climate scientists.

(…)

The IPCC is facing a major crisis of confidence and it is almost guaranteed to deepen if the IPCC does not act decisively and aggressively to restore its credibility.

This must start with establishing compelling policies on the use of grey literature and then complying with those policies consistently and convincingly.

Og måske er det netop den nagende tvivl ved FN’s Klimapanel og underliggende også ved klimapanelets påstande, der får regeringer over hele verden til om ikke at sadle om så vente hinanden ud indtil den dagsorden, som de med larmende iver har indskrevet sig under skifter af sig selv. Fomålet med klimarapporten var jo at give verdens ledere forudsætningen for at træffe den rette beslutning (at demokratisk valgte politikere ikke i første omgang løb skrigende væk fra den tankegang er i sig selv en skandale), som man selv havde formuleret det. Man organiserede et bæst til at bekræfte sig selv og nu sidder hjælpeløst og venter på at det dør af sig selv, som det antydes i Guardian

UN climate talks are on the brink of unravelling and will collapse within months unless the EU shows global leadership by committing to a second phase of the only legally binding international treaty for cutting carbon emissions, a leading thinktank warned on Thursday.

It came as new analysis from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) showed that developing countries have now pledged to cut more emissions than rich countries and have met all the conditions they signed up to at the Copenhagen and Cancún summits.

“There is still hope [for the talks] if enough developed countries decide they will stay with the Kyoto protocol, starting in 2013,” said Martin Khor, the executive director of the Geneva-based South Centre, an intergovernmental thinktank that advises developing countries.

So far, only Norway and Sweden have said they will definitely sign up to a second round of Kyoto, while New Zealand and Australia have indicated they are prepared to sign up. Russia, Canada and Japan have said they will not, and the EU has said it will commit if major economies, such as China, India and the US, take the actions needed to meet targets.

“This is the crunch time. If the EU says, yes, the conditions are fulfilled, then there is some hope. Then Japan, Russia and Canada could be attracted back. But if the EU says no, then the whole thing unravels and the international climate system collapses. It is unthinkable,” said Khor.

Dette kunne være det tipping-point, som klimapanelet har advaret os imod. Eller….deres verden er i hvert fald truet af alt det møg de selv har sprøjtet ud i deres omgivelser.

1 Kommentar »

  1. http://market-dcd.com
    Offers, Make Money With Surveys, Win Free Money, The Easy Way To Earn Money Make money online,
    Earn money by complet offer, survey, offers, multi media, ads, get
    paid , make money at home, Paid Offers, How to get money fast, Get Paid To Complete
    Every time you will got money for complete an offers.

    This money you can earn per every offer.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress