Bad Science Bait & Switch Big Picture British Biogas British Sea Power Conflict of Interest Delay and Deny Demoticratica Design Matters Direction of Travel Divide & Rule Emissions Impossible Energy Change Evil Opposition Fossilised Fuels Freak Science Green Investment Green Power Hide the Incline Hydrocarbon Hegemony Major Shift Marvellous Wonderful Mass Propaganda Media Non-Science Not In My Name Nuclear Nuisance Nuclear Shambles Obamawatch Peace not War Peak Energy Peak Oil Public Relations Realistic Models Renewable Gas Renewable Resource Scientific Fallacy Solar Sunrise Solution City Sustainable Deferment Technofix Technological Fallacy Technological Sideshow Technomess The Data Unqualified Opinion Wind of Fortune

Steve McIntyre : Plan Beak


Steve McIntyre, probably the only person on the planet who might grumble about the cost of Barack Obama’s suit rather than his all-American wars, has suddenly become an expert energy engineer, it seems.

This month, he’s taking aim at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, regarding their special report on Renewable Energy, questioning the contributions of an engineer, Sven Teske, and basing his objections on the fact that Teske works for Greenpeace :-

Flinging any kind of pseudo-mud he can construe at the IPCC is not Steve’s newest of tricks, but it still seems to be effective, going by the dance of the close cohort of the very few remaining loyal climate change “sceptics” who get published in widely-read media :-

He even pulled the turtleneck over Andrew Revkin’s eyes for a while :-

And Mark Lynas has been joining in, in his own nit-picky way :-

The few comebacks have been bordering on the satirical, or briefly factual, with the exception of Carbon Brief’s very measured analysis of the IPCC’s communication expertise :-

Leo Hickman’s being bravely evenhanded :-

It’s not a total surprise that New Scientist and The Economist wade in deep :-

Sven Teske’s explanation has not been accepted by Mark Lynas, although it seems really OK to me :-

The Daily Mail digs out the usual emotive terms :-

Steve McIntyre is playing out the “Princess and the Pea” narrative, complaining about a few wrunkles in a process of international collaboration, and distracting us from looking at the actual report, which I would encourage you most warmly to do :-

It is full of the most incredible case studies and intriguing engineering discoveries. It makes cautious, conservative calculations, and looks at conditions and caveats in a very transparent manner. For a work that relied on the contributions of over 120 people and managed to compose a document so helpful and illuminating, I’d say it’s a work of profound achievement, and should be read in every school and university. Four scenarios from a collection of 164 are studied in depth to compare their strengths and weaknesses – and the conclusion of the SRREN team is that :-

“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…”

Somehow, though, Steve McIntyre believes otherwise. I suppose it’s not completely fair to berate him, because he might be suffering from a delusion, given that he seems to believe his opinion trumps that of over a hundred of the world’s authorities on what is possible in Renewable Energy technologies; and I’m the last person who would criticise somebody for having a mental illness.

I’m wondering, however, since he often sticks his nose up at IPCC matters, and since the world is suffering from stress in the supply of fossil fuels, whether he has a “Plan Beak” for the world’s energy crisis ?

Come on Steve McIntyre, tell us what your plan is to provide energy for humanity. Don’t tell me you believe that Nuclear Power is the way forward. I just won’t believe you, and a large number of the citizens of the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and help us all, even Switzerland, would share my doubts.

As everybody can clearly see from the Columbia University graph at the top of this post, the IPCC are right about emissions, and the global warming data shows they’re right about that too. Why should they be wrong about Renewable Energy ?

I mean, I detect there are a few issues with the way the IPCC organises itself, and the style of its reports, but hey, where’s the viable alternative ? I don’t see one, anywhere. And don’t go pointing me to groups with pretensions.

We may just have to get used to complex international bodies, formed of complex, intelligent people, and learn how to read their complex, intricate reports with care and attention. And not get distracted by grumpy semi-retired mining consultants.

2 replies on “Steve McIntyre : Plan Beak”

Now…(thanks for the research all those links)

What if you overlay that graph with Actual temperatures, vs those temperatures projected by the IPCC projections..

Which is of course the point.. what is temp doing in relation to CO2

Anyway, regardless what Steve, Jo or I say.. China alone is going to continue to ADD each year the entire UK output of CO2 to the global CO2.

Whilst of course this is a mere 2% of the 4% of CO2 emitted by man, vs the annual 96% CO2 emmission by nature..

China and India and Africa are going to be overall increasing global CO2 levels for the next few decade (even IF the EU, reudce theirs)

This is the real world we live in China, Inda doing what they want, improve/grow their economies. Nothing you or I can say or do will stop this.


My cursory reading of the financial news suggests that the industrialised economies, including China, are going to contract significantly in the next few years.

Economic activity, as measured by GDP, is not the same as wealth creation. Without significant asset-building, the economies will be unable to grow further.

Real value is based on labour, raw resources (including energy resources), soils, public infrastructure. Fossil fuel supplies are stretched. Agriculture is stretched by poor land use. There is significant underemployment. Construction has caved. What assets are being created ? None.

Since the property bubble has burst, markets have moved to food and energy investment, and working the “zero sum game” of international currency flows. However, things may come to a head. Food speculation may not create value because of climate change damage to crop harvests. Energy investment may have a kickback effect, because the whole economy is founded on energy. American could easily sink. Europe looks like it’s teetering too.

China will almost definitely be going down if America is going down – just check the volumes of trade between the two countries.

I would therefore suggest it is a possibility that the Chinese and Indian (and Russian and Mexican and Brazilian…) economies are going to stall within five to ten years, because of the implosion of the rest of the global economy. So even if China does not implement any further environmental legislation (they are already putting a lot in play), their emissions would naturally peak.

If this scenario unfolds, Europe’s efforts to build renewable energy will pay dividends. This is because the deployment of Renewable Energy technologies is creating real assets – and employment.

The European economy might take a few knocks over the next decade, but the medium-term position, having built the Green Economy, and made it “lean” in using less energy, will be more secure than other regions that have not understood what they need to do for truly sustainable development.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.