2011-06-20 08:45:55IPCC Report on Renewables and McManufactured Controversy
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.102.37

Post on the recent IPCC renewables report and manufactured controversy is ready for review:

IPCC Report on Renewables and McManufactured Controversy

2011-06-20 21:10:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.61.243

My thought is that the controversy is the "elephant in the living room" and you should get that out of the way first. Maybe you've already considered this perspective, however.

2011-06-20 21:28:29My initital review comments
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

1. The lead paragraph is too long and contians too many facts and figures. Create a new "clean" lead paragraph and put the details into subsequent paragraphs.

2. Replace the acronym, SRREN with "IPCC special report" and variations thereof. BTW, how does one derive the acronym, SRREN from, "Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation"?

3. The second sentence of the second paragraph begins, "Of the 300 gigawatts (GW) of new electricity-generating power plants added globally between 2008 and 2009,..." What is between 2008 and 2009? 

3. Create a title for the first table and add a source footnote.

4. Reconstitute the first sentence of the fifth paragraph [The report also notes that as we have previously discussed, the external costs of coal combustion (primarily due to health impacts and climate change), which are not currently reflected in the market price of coal power, increase the true cost of coal several times over, whereas the external costs of renewable energy sources are much lower (Figure 1).] This sentence is too long and contains too many facts. Break it up.

5. Insert a title on Figure 1.

6. Reconstitue the first setence of the sixth paragraph [An argument that many "skeptics" like to make (including John Christy) is that historically, economic development has been strongly correlated with increasing energy use and growth of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, since the majority of energy production has historically come from fossil fuels. ]  This sentence is too long and convoluted. Break it up. Avoid using the same word twice in the same senetnce.

7. The first sentence of the seventh paragraph [However, this is simply a logical fallacy.] should be the last sentence of the sixth paragraph.

To be continued

2011-06-20 22:49:11
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.146.82.206

The last paragraph:

"Until the "skeptics" and "auditors" can come up with substantive scientific arguments rather than empty logical fallacies, it would behoove those of us who understand the magnitude of the climate problem and importance of addressing it (like Mark Lynas) to simply ignore these manufactured controversies rather than magnifying them."

I tried toying around with it but failed miserably! I replaced "Until" with "Unless" (I don't think they will come up with substantive science, ever), but the end was tricky - we are not ignoring this business either!

Perhaps a simple final flourish to end with?

"Ironies aside, one thing is for certain: once again, for some blogosphere inhabitants, the main consequence of this affair is that the laws of physics have been cancelled until further notice (again). This is, of course, ridiculous, but unsurprising: it is something that comes with the territory."

Just a suggestion!

Cheers - John

2011-06-20 23:06:41Split it up!
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The more I ponder this draft, the more convinced I become that is should be split into two articles.

The first article should be a straightdforward synopsis of the IPPC report without any reference to the criticisms that have been heaped upon it by the climate deniers.

Rebutting the criticism in an article about the contents of the report idemeans the value of the report by dividing the reader's focus.

 

2011-06-21 02:36:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks, I implemented most of the suggestions, though I'm going to keep SRREN because it's the IPCC's acronym (special report on renewable energy, I think).

I'll consider breaking it up into two posts.  Would appreciate other thoughts on this suggestion.

2011-06-21 02:41:36
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.61.243

It probably makes sense to separate the issues.

2011-06-21 03:03:18
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.162.190
I think that you may run into trouble if you talk about the technical content without discussing the controversy. if you do decide to deal with just the substance of the report, or Chapter 10, first, make sure that you state that you are well aware of the controversy and will be posting on it later.
2011-06-21 03:23:47
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah if I do break it up, I'll mention the controversy and say there's another post coming on the subject.

2011-06-21 04:16:21Another recommendation
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Add the names and affiliations of the committee members as a note to the article.

PS -- The acronym SRREN looks like something out of a James Bond movie.

2011-06-21 04:19:42Also
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Post the two articles simultaneously. Doing so will make it easier to maintain the integrity of each comment thread.

2011-06-21 04:42:02
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

That's not a bad idea - since email alerts don't go out immediately anymore, it shouldn't be a problem to post both simultaneously, and cross-reference them. 

2011-06-21 05:13:13split
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Here they are split up:

  • IPCC Report on Renewable Energy
  • McManufactured Controversy
  • 2011-06-21 06:55:04Excellente!
    John Hartz
    John Hartz
    john.hartz@hotmail...
    98.122.98.161

    Excellente!

    2011-06-21 07:24:08
    Rob Painting
    Rob
    paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
    118.92.99.9

    Sweet as bro! Good call on splitting the post Badger.

    2011-06-21 07:31:39
    Andy S

    skucea@telus...
    66.183.162.190

    Dana, here's a link to some information on Raymond Wright and his book, which is probably what earned him a spot as a lead author. You already noted that one of three Chevron authors was a geothermal expert, apparently Chevron claims to be the world's largest producer of geothermal energy (I've no idea if this is true). Chevron is also spending millions on carbon capture and storage in Australia and has a major non-food biofuels project with a timber company. It's possible that the other two Chevron authors are involved in these two projects. For what it's worth, I don't think anyone working for a corporation or an activist NGO should be an IPCC Lead Author.

    I realize that I am in a minority of one here in thinking that this issue represents a real problem of bias as well as incompetent public relations management at the IPCC, so I'll butt out from now on this in this Forum. I am conflicted about posting a rebuttal to Dana's second article in the comments section since I don't want to add to the glee in denialist circles as they see a dispute break out amongst their foes.

    2011-06-21 07:41:51
    dana1981
    Dana Nuccitelli
    dana1981@yahoo...
    64.129.227.4

    I'm sure there was a good reason the Chevron guys were invited to contribute, just like there was a good reason Teske was invited.  But if there's going to be a knee-jerk reaction because Teske works for Greenpeace, why isn't there an equal knee-jerk reaction over the Big Oil employees?  That's the only point I'm trying to make there.

    Feel free to say whatever you want in the comments section.  Nothing wrong with a good spirited debate.  I do agree that there is a PR issue, especially with the way they wrote the press release.  I just personally don't put much (if any) stock in press releases, and think we need to point out that the deniers are focusing exclusively on the press release and author affiliations instead of the science.

    Yes, the IPCC gave the deniers an opportunity to turn this into a PR issue, but in the end, that's all it is.

    2011-06-21 07:49:35
    nealjking

    nealjking@gmail...
    84.151.61.243

    Andy,

    I would take issue with you on two points:

    - IPCC lead author: I don't know how these leads were selected, but my personal view is that the essential criterion is to have the respect, and the suupport, of the team. It makes it more complicated if the lead is with an active NGO or corporation, but I believe that this is manageable if the PR people are not sleep-walking.

    - Disagreeing with Dana: I don't see any problem with your doing that, if it's done with mutual respect and conducted fairly. It could, in fact, show the skeptics how real discussion is done: Not by beating the chest, but by presenting alternative perspectives. To quote the philosopher Bertrand Russell: "Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter."