Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 Next
Comments 81951 to 82000:
-
quokka at 12:07 PM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
#20 Tom Curtis If you want to pursue this energy intensity argument in the EU and Japan, then the purported improvements in energy intensity must take into the account the rising embedded energy in imported goods. Do they? While there is trend in the developed world towards a greater proportion of economic activity to be in service industries eg leisure, education, health etc, that are in general less resource intensive (including energy), extrapolating this to the developing world on a scale that would reduce energy demand seems a bridge too far. With another two billion people on the planet expected by 2050 and over one and a half billion currently without electricity the potential for enormous increase in energy demand is quite plain. This does not mean that all these people will be lifted by magic out of poverty to a reasonable standard of living, but the historical trend is quite obvious and in the absence of some catastrophic event quite irreversible. It is frequently (and quite reasonably) argued that addressing climate change is about managing risk. Using dubious assumptions about worldwide energy demand being reduced by 2050 seems to me to represent extreme risk. It is far from impossible that demand could simply explode. This report suggests that world energy consumption increased by 5% in 2010. Even allowing for the effects of the GFC - Ouch! -
Norman at 11:51 AM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis @ 129 You claim "The problem here seems to be that you do not appreciate how global warming must impact in a chaotic system. Put simply the fact that the mean global surface temperature is 0.6 degrees warmer than it was a century ago impacts on every weather system. As the regional expression of that temperature increase is part of the initial conditions for every weather system on Earth, every weather system is a consequence of global warming. Note that this is a trivially true fact - it follows from the definition of "chaotic"; and it is also uninteresting. But not remembering it means you will hopelessly miss frame any search for the effects of global warming on extreme weather events." Actually I would agree with your statement... Global Warming = Climate Change. I am not questioning this postition. Here is the leap I question. Global Warming = Climate Change = Increased Frequency of Extreme weather events. Note please. I am not stating in a "denier" mentality that Climate Change is not increasing the frequency of extreme weather events. I am stating I have not been presented enough valid empirical evidence that this is indeed the case. First of all, what is an extreme weather event. Who is doing the counting? Is this an opinion? To be a valid study and scientific topic a rigorous definition of an extreme weather event is needed for accounting purposes. A record high temp or cold would obviously be an extreme weather event along with record rainfall. These would be the easy ones to document and record for a tally sheet. But what of the others? What if the temp is only one degree lower than the record? How much above normal would be considered extreme? -
Norman at 11:42 AM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
JMurphy @ 130 and 132 I have already looked at both the extreme temp links you posted. I still can't find temp records outside the US. Intellicast web site gives every major city in US historical temp data (record high and low and years they happened). Accuweather provides nice monthly anomaly graphs for any given city a few months worth. The anomaly graph has the normal high and low line along with the record high and low so one can see in a glance if temps look too high. Maybe Europe has nice web pages for temp extremes. I read through your link at 132. Here is the conclusion to the study. "There is a statistically significant increase in all disasters, and this trend is driven mainly by a rising number of floods in all regions and by more storm events in Asia and the Americas. Changes in population do not fully explain the rising number of floods, nor can the trend be entirely attributed to changes in how disasters are recorded. It was not possible to directly analyse the effect of climate change on disaster trends; however, there is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that climate change is increasing hazards and hence trends in reported disasters. This effect is unlikely to be very large, because the magnitude of climate change over the past 20-30 years is relatively small when compared with (for example) the growth in the world’s population over that time." Basically the Munch Re report can not be used to determine the frequency of extreme weather events (hazards). An EF5 tornado is only a hazard in a field with no people present. It is recorded as a disaster when it strikes a populated area. Disasters are increasing but not enough data is available to determine if hazards are increasing. -
Tom Curtis at 11:29 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
pauls @12, from my reading of the report, the scenario assumes a reduction not in demand, but in energy intensity, ie, Kilowatts used per unit GDP produced. Further, they assume a reduction in energy intensity at the same rate as is currently being achieved in the EU, and to a target level which has already been achieved in Japan. Prima facie, that is not an implausible target. -
Norman at 11:15 AM on 22 June 2011Linking Extreme Weather and Global Warming
Tom Curtis Why does Munch Re have two very different graphs of weather related catastrophes? Here is another one that is much different in look than your 116 post graph. Another Munch Re graph. -
Andy Skuce at 11:07 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Bibliovermis @ 29 Yes I do think that anyone working for an energy company or a political advocacy group should not be a Lead Author/Editor of a report like the SSREN (see me @ 15, above). But I recognize (as I said in my post @11) that the IPCC probably can't be/shouldn't be as picky when it comes to contributing authors, which is all the more reason to have people who are clearly unconflicted making the final decisions on content and emphasis. For what it's worth, the report would have been diminished without Teske's scenario being included. I think. However, the report would have been more convincing, especially to skeptics, if the senior authors had all been people--probably tenured academics--whose integrity and independence from any pressure from their employers could be clearly demonstrated. Basically, my objection is that the IPCC's political tone-deafness is making the contrarians' rhetorical case for them. -
Eamon at 11:03 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Dana1981@3 Lynas has not raised any substantive criticisms of the report. He's unhappy that the 77% plan phases out nuclear power, but that's neither here nor there - the plan is both technically and economically feasible. Of course phasing out nuclear power is pertinent - it's a low-carbon power source. If the scenario in the Greenpeace report doesn't pan out then all we've done is increase carbon emissions for little gain. -
quokka at 10:57 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
@dana1981 & MartinSAccording to SRREN, renewables are already developing rapidly. Of the 300 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity-generating power plants added globally from 2008 to 2009, nearly half (140 GW) came from renewable sources.
Yes, I read that too in the summary for policy makers and it is a poor and misleading representation of the true state of affairs because it does not mention capacity factor. The correct way to gauge the contributions of new renewables build is to weight the nameplate capacity by the capacity factor to determine how much of electricity that will be generated from the new build will be low emission. The picture will be far less rosy with PV nominally up to about 20% (12% in Germany) on-shore wind nominally up to 30% (reportedly 17% in Germany), hydro very much site specific but around 45% worldwide. Etc. I don't know the exact figures, but it is very unlikely that renewables would represent more than 25% of new build and quite possibly considerably less when correctly assessed. -
Roddy Campbell at 10:37 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
dana - thanks. A quick (admittedly) look at Epstein, the key quote might be: 'Climate impacts were monetized using estimates of the social cost of carbon—the valuation of the damages due to emissions of one metric ton of carbon, of $30/ton of CO2equivalent (CO2e),20 with low and high estimates of $10/ton and $100/ton. There is uncertainty around the total cost of climate change and its present value, thus uncertainty concerning the social cost of carbon derived from the total costs.' I couldn't see any great justification of either the $10 or the $100 extremities? It's an interesting subject - clearly there are externalities of coal, as there are externalities of many activities, the climate change externality must be the hardest to get a grip of - what is the external climate cost of a US coal plant etc. I see they use $7.5m for a value of a life - it's not clear, or is it, that many US lives (which determine the $7.5m value) will be lost from CO2? -
Philippe Chantreau at 10:31 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Considering how McIntyre has been trying to fool and mislead everybody for years, him accusing others of doing so is laughable. No attention should be paid to this charlatan, but, unfortunately, attention is easy to get in this World. -
michael sweet at 10:25 AM on 22 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
Eric, "The melt pool may not be significant as the sea ice extent is essential the same as last year". Last year was the lowest ever recorded. The melt pools this year appeared at the North Pole a full week before they have ever been measured before. Do you realize that the IJIS area for 2011 has been the record low of all time for the past week? It has crawled above 2010 and is now just second lowest. You appear to be arguing that since it has not set a season record minimum yet (the melt season is only beginning) that there is no problem. What would constitute a problem if being at the lowest level ever recorded for the current date is not a problem?? -
sunoba at 10:21 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Interesting post - thanks. As you mentioned, if a social cost of carbon is applied, then the cost of coal-fired electricity approaches the cost of solar-generated electricity. For estimates of the Levelised Electricity Cost with a social cost of carbon, please see real cost of coal-fired power and LEC - the accountant's view. Other posts on www.sunoba.blogspot.com deal analyse the LEC for various large solar installations. -
Roddy Campbell at 10:05 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Dana - can you give me a clue how you're costing externalities of AGW/CO2? ref your comments 5 & 7.Response:[dana1981] See Figure 1 in the post above, and also The True Cost of Coal Power
? -
dana1981 at 10:04 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
pauls - if McIntyre had limited his criticisms to the press release, I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But he went a tad bit further."Everyone in IPCC WG3 should be terminated and, if the institution is to continue, it should be re-structured from scratch."
I'd say that's a tad bit extreme if you're only complaint is about a flawed press release. As for the selection of Teske's study, it's only logical since it was the scenario with the largest renewable penetration. That's the one I would have chosen to highlight too. -
dana1981 at 10:00 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
pauls - the Ecofys report (linked in the post above) also has energy demand lower in 2050. I think Jacobsen and Delucchi do too. It's really not that uncommon. For one thing, just switching to renewable energy increases efficiency, because fossil fuels and nuclear waste a lot of energy by continuing to run at their peak during off-peak hours. As I recall, Jacobsen and Delucchi found that switching to renewables would decrease energy needs by 30% by itself. Then you add more efficient buildings and vehicles, etc., and the Teske efficiency scenario is definitely plausible. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:46 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
pauls... You might try reading the paper and see how they come up with their numbers. Just a thought. As Dana points out, there are other groups who've done similar reports with more aggressive targets. So, it sounds to me like, once again, the IPCC is taking a conservative position on this issue. -
Bibliovermis at 09:37 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy S & Eric the Red, Do you think that scientists employed by petroleum companies should also be banned from being IPCC Lead Authors? Would there be any PR problems associated with that? As Dana said above, disparaging somebody work's on the basis of their associations rather than the content of the work is the pure essence of an ad hominem fallacy. No amount of kowtowing to those who manufacture controversy will stop them from doing so. -
pauls at 09:34 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
3, dana1981 - 'Lynas has not raised any substantive criticisms of the report. He's unhappy that the 77% plan phases out nuclear power, but that's neither here nor there - the plan is both technically and economically feasible.' I agree that Lynas' arguments are low on substance but I can't really see how Teske's scenario is really plausible, at least with the all the details in the report: The way they achieve 77% renewables without nuclear and CCS is to reduce the total energy demand. This is despite world population increasing to 9 billion. With all this happening they still suggest that GDP per capita can increase at the same speed as zero-mitigation scenarios. I'm certainly not an expert in economics but I can't see how this is feasible. -
pauls at 09:16 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
19, dana1981 - 'On the other hand, it clearly reveals the bias and double-standard of McIntyre and co, since Greenpeace isn't allowed to have a lead author, but a petroleum company is.' Well, McIntyre isn't actually suggesting that Greenpeace shouldn't be allowed involvement I don't think, though that is the message everyone else on his site is taking away. He's mainly leading on 'Headline of press release was misleading/ambiguous - it's unreasonable to expect journalists to read any further than that' and 'Conflict of Interest - Teske maybe involved in selecting own study as focus.' Lynas has introduced various arguments but it's clear for him the only important point is that any ties between Greenpeace and the IPCC are unacceptable. I think he has a history with them, particularly regarding nuclear power. -
John Hartz at 09:05 AM on 22 June 2011It's not happening
Let's get cracking on updating this article! -
John Hartz at 09:04 AM on 22 June 2011It's not happening
The green tab for this post needs fixing. -
Tom Curtis at 08:51 AM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
thepoodlebites @82, If a 1 degree reduction in temperatures in the LIA caused the ITCZ to migrate 500 km south, I fail to see how a prediction of a 500 km north migration for a predicted 3 degree increase in temperatures over MWP peak values is bold. -
Rob Honeycutt at 08:36 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Sphaerica... You know, that is exactly my thinking as well. I think SkS is doing a good job of making information available regarding all their claims, but ultimately it comes down to people's interest in the issue. The more and more the McI's of the world go overboard with these sorts of baseless claims, the sooner people will stop listening to them and start listening to the actual scientists. (Boy who cried wolf-syndrome.) -
Bob Lacatena at 08:29 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
25, Rob Honeycutt,They just want to stir up the dirt.
Let them. The mercury is rising, the ice is melting, the fires are burning, and summer hasn't even started. It's sad, because we've all seen it coming, but I have a feeling that within a few years every ridiculous stretch like this one is going to add up to a major "holy cow, what were we thinking listening to these clowns?" Utlimately, only the court jesters that frequent the court of WUWT will fail to see that something is amiss, and that more attention should be paid to the real scientists than to the wizards behind the curtains, frantically pulling levers and speaking into oversized microphones.Response:[DB] Fixed tag.
-
Bob Lacatena at 08:16 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
DB, The ancient Roman's actually invented urban legends, but I think that belief itself is only an urban legend. It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks, on the other hand, invented recursion when their historians decided that the only peoples worth researching were themselves. How does this relate to the post and climate change? It doesn't, but if you delete this comment, you will be doomed to seven years of bad luck, which interestingly enough is a superstition which traces back to feudal Japan... -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:54 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Eric said... "People will rememeber the greenpeace connection much more than the report content." And that's exactly why it's a manufactured controversy. McI et al (probably) understand that there isn't much there to impugn the report. They just want to stir up the dirt. -
Riccardo at 07:33 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
I still can't see the scandal given that there are several people from the private sector between the lead authors of the report. Doesn't they have vested interested as well? Should they leave them out as well? I don't think it's correct to judge along this line. The Governments who nominated them apparently chose to have both. When we look for solutions it is and should be inevitable to invlove those people as well. -
Eric the Red at 06:50 AM on 22 June 2011How would a Solar Grand Minimum affect global warming?
Actually it shows the correlation between sunspots and European temperatures back to 1650.Response:[DB] Not about sunspots or global temps. Still off-topic.
-
Eric the Red at 06:44 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy, I agree with you. The inclusion as lead author gives the impression of partiality. Especially since this is not the first time that the IPCC has been associated with greenpeace. Dana, I agree that it is a PR nightmare for the IPCC, coming at a time when they can least afford it. People will rememeber the greenpeace connection much more than the report content. -
dhogaza at 06:27 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
yes, I understood your use of "funny". "Like how can there be such a kerfuffle over trying to ramp up renewable energy production? Unless you're pro-fossil fuels and/or pro-nuclear, I suppose." Exactly. The economic argument for inaction is that essentially decarbonization would be so destructive to the economy that (in the extreme denialist view) we'd virtually have to give up anything resembling our modern lifestyle. Present research that points to a path that can lead to decarbonization while maintaining prosperity and you've destroyed that argument. Which puts the fossil fuel interests in a bind. But also those who oppose any form of collectivist (government) action on principle... -
scaddenp at 06:21 AM on 22 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Eric, with the current policy (do nothing), policymakers are betting a low sensitivity. This is neither likely nor precautionary. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:15 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Sphaerica... I just googled it up and it may not even be Chinese. It may be more likely western in origin but dolled up to sound Confucian. [Link.] None-the-less... An interesting decade clearly lay before us.Response:[DB] Just like this urban legend attributed to Petronius Arbiter:
We trained hard…but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was soon to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.
Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
-
dana1981 at 06:10 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
dhogaza - 'funny' as in "WTF is going on?". An absurd sort of funny. Like how can there be such a kerfuffle over trying to ramp up renewable energy production? Unless you're pro-fossil fuels and/or pro-nuclear, I suppose. -
JMurphy at 06:08 AM on 22 June 2011Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review
Joshua, you should have a look at DeepClimate's analysis of Wegman's analysis (or should that be McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis ?) here and here. -
funglestrumpet at 06:05 AM on 22 June 2011Introducing the Skeptical Science team
Stevo @ 3 says it all - great work and thanks. I would love to think that my grandchildren (if my son ever stops spending all his time trying to avoid having them) will find this page on their old granddad's computer and be able to see that at least some people of this time weren't completely selfish with no concern for the lot of future generations. -
Bob Lacatena at 06:01 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
8, Rob, Just to clarify, that's not a Chinese saying, it's a Chinese curse... and therefore all the more applicable. -
dhogaza at 06:00 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
The funny thing to me is that this report was just about how much energy we can produce from renewable sources, and there's this huge controversy like meeting a high percentage of our energy demands with renewable sources is such a bad thing!
What's funny about it? If we can decarbonize without crippling the world economy, then the economic argument against taking action disappears. If they can't hide behind the cover of science skepticism and economic alarmism, their political and big business motivations are laid bare ... -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:55 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Almost all my optimism is on this one fact. Once the cost of PVs drops below coal then the economic incentive becomes to produce cheaper energy that just happens to also be cleaner. Those investment levels become FAR easier to hit when there is a clear economic advantage. The old Chinese saying is, "May you live in interesting times." Well, we are certainly living those times today. My sense is that this next decade will be pivotal for humanity on a lot of levels. -
dana1981 at 05:45 AM on 22 June 2011IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
Yes Rob, sometime in the next decade solar PV is expected to meet that threshold. As Figure 2 in the post shows, the costs are really dropping rapidly as production continues to ramp up. But remember that's the market price of coal. If there were a price on carbon emissions, solar PV would probably already be cheaper. -
dana1981 at 05:39 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
To follow up on Andy's point, by choosing Teske as a lead author, the IPCC effectively gave McIntyre the opportunity to create this manufactured controversy. You could argue the choice was a PR mistake. On the other hand, it clearly reveals the bias and double-standard of McIntyre and co, since Greenpeace isn't allowed to have a lead author, but a petroleum company is. Ultimately the IPCC is trying to get experts to contribute to these reports, and they clearly place expertise over affiliation in their selection process. I guess the question is whether they need to try and anticipate the attacks of denialists like McIntyre when making those selections. The funny thing to me is that this report was just about how much energy we can produce from renewable sources, and there's this huge controversy like meeting a high percentage of our energy demands with renewable sources is such a bad thing! -
CanadianClimateHawk at 05:36 AM on 22 June 2011Review of 2084: An Oral History of the Great Warming by James Powell
I read the book and I find it sobering to say the least. One could quibble about the timing of climate events but that would be to miss the big picture we are stealing from future generations the ability to lead a healthy life. -
Eric the Red at 05:35 AM on 22 June 2011Websites for Watching the Arctic Sea Ice Melt
according to PIOMAS, sea ice volume has been below 2007 values for the past two years. http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b014e885c65ac970d-piResponse:[DB] FYI, that is a hindcast product (PIOMAS 1), with quadratic curves fitted to them. I.e., not to be taken as a prediction for future performance. The graph I posted above is from the newer system, PIOMAS 2. Less volume = less area and extent.
-
Bob Lacatena at 05:34 AM on 22 June 2011Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
208, Eric the Red, Please see my responses 204 and 205 to your post 203, which are equally applicable to your post 208, where you appear to simply say the exact same thing again. A detailed response from you is required in order to support your position. -
DSL at 05:34 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
I disagree with the core of your complaint, Andy. It either sounds like you want scientists to be removed from lead authorship for rhetorical purposes (to avoid the consequences in the war of words), or it sounds like you want scientists to be apolitical (impossible, given what's at stake -- there is a conflict of interest for any human being). All of the involved scientists are associated with institutions. According to many of the doubters, the fact that a scientist is being paid by a government is an immediate sign of corruption. According to many of those who accept AGW, anyone who works for an oil company is corrupt. Despite all the corruption, science does manage to get done. The contributions must be weighed according to their scientific merit not according to their authors. Yes, I know: in the necessarily simplified world of the unwashed, non-scientific masses, scientific merit is impossible to read. The association of the author is a much more readable (and inaccurate) sign. So back to the other possibility: are you advocating for lead authors to step down if their associations are too politically volatile? I suspect that such a practice would itself be much more damaging to the reputation of organized science. -
grypo at 05:27 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
If done correctly, and with an eye toward improvement on PR, what Andy S is suggesting is not really bowing to the demands of people like McIntyre. If the IPCC were to do that, as we all know from over a decade of his nonsense, the changes would never stop, and we can all figure where the endgame is. While I disagree with Andy S about automatically disqualifying people, for whatever reason, I agree that there should already be a CoI strategy to deal with these matters, both internally and PR-wise. Somehow, this caught them off-guard, probably because the WG's II and III and very different from WG1, and they did not expect the same adherence to scientific protocol (grey lit, industry connection, etc). The alliance with Lynas is a different story. Lynas is very critical of the anti-nuke movement within the "greens". He understands the need to decarbonize the atmosphere ASAP and understands the political implications of not agreeing to nuclear concessions, and other negotiable energy sources involved, with which I am in agreement. I do hope he realizes that his motivations and that of others involved are not equivalent. -
Andy Skuce at 05:24 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
CBD 14 I'm arguing that nobody who has a vested interest through their employment, either with a corporation or a political advocacy organisation, should have an editorial role at the IPCC. The case for academics who receive some of their funding from energy companies (fossil fuel or renewable) is admittedly not so clear-cut. -
Andy Skuce at 05:13 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
dhogaza 12 and 13: no I'm not supporting McIntyre's rules, as I made clear in the first paragraph. I'm also not saying that anyone one from Greenpeace should be excluded from contributing to the IPCC, especially if they have written peer-reviewed articles, just that they shouldn't be Lead Authors. The same should go for employees of the Cato Institute, SaudiAramco or Exxon-Mobil. -
CBDunkerson at 05:04 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy S, if we were to apply the 'guilt by association' logic you are arguing then we would also have to rail against the inclusion of materials by McIntyre himself, Christy, the Pielke's, and various other skeptics who have been referenced in or worked on IPCC reports... given their connections to the fossil fuel industry. More reasonable to discuss positions on their merits... but in that case the 'skeptics' don't have a leg to stand on. Hence the gamesmanship. -
dhogaza at 04:59 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
Andy S: You're essentially saying that the game has to be played by the rules laid out by Steve McIntyre and other denialists (though I actually haven't seen a written version of those rules). If the denialists are allowed to define the rules, they will have won. Pure and simple. -
dhogaza at 04:58 AM on 22 June 2011McManufactured Controversy
For the WG2 and WG3 areas of research, it’s inevitable that non peer-reviewed “grey” literature is going to have to be referenced.
What does this have to do with the inclusion of peer-reviewed research published in a legitimate journal in the report being discussed?At the very least, surely, employees of highly politicised advocacy organizations like Greenpeace should not be appointed as Lead Authors.
Take it up with the German government, then, he was their choice ...
Prev 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 Next
