Junk Science Week: Lipstick, apples & sperm counts

Activists dodge good science to maintain scaremongering — and donations

By Terence Corcoran, National Post

Apples contaminated by pesticides. Lipstick filled with heavy metals. Carcinogens in the water. Sperm counts that don’t add up. Welcome to our 13th annual Junk Science Week event, dedicated to exposing the scientists, NGOs, activists, politicians, journalists, media outlets, cranks and quacks who manipulate science data to achieve their objectives. Our standard definition is that junk science occurs when scientific facts are distorted, risk is exaggerated and the science adapted and warped by politics and ideology to serve another agenda. Read the entire article here

16 thoughts on “Junk Science Week: Lipstick, apples & sperm counts

  1. There is a new discussion on Climate Audit about renewable energy, Greenpeace and the sources of how the world can be powered by renewable energy. The claim is that 80% of the worlds energy could come from from renewables by 2050.


    This is a must read read for “lovers of Junk Science Exposes”

    Claim: 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.

    SM’s comments in part::

    In accompanying interviews, IPCC officials said that the obstacles were not scientific or technological, but merely a matter of political will.

    Little of the increase was due to ‘traditional’ renewables (hydro and ‘traditional’ biomass, mostly dung), but to solar, wind and non-traditional biomass.

    I, for one, was keenly interested in how IPCC got to its potential 80%. Unfortunately, in keeping with execrable IPCC practices, the supporting documents for the Renewables Study were not made available at the time of the original announcement. (Only the Summary for Policy-makers was made available at the time.) This showed one worrying aspect of the announcement. The report was based on 164 ‘scenarios’ and the ‘up to 80%” scenario in the lead sentence of their press release was not representative of their scenarios, but the absolute top end. This sort of press release is not permitted in mining promotions and it remains a mystery to me why it is tolerated in academic press releases or press releases by international institutions.

    The underlying report was scheduled for release on June 14 and was released today on schedule. Naturally, I was interested in the provenance of the 80% scenario and in determining precisely what due diligence had been carried out by IPCC to determine the realism of this scenario prior to endorsing it in their press release. I hoped against hope that it would be something more than an IPCC cover version of a Greenpeace study but was disappointed.

    This is a MUST READ article for people here!

    This goes to the heart and soul of the rush to renewable energy!

  2. A little more on this latest breaking Scandal…


    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.

    Oh my Gosh — and the good leaders of Honestario were counting on the integrity and Good Works of ?Greenpeace? Whoodathunkit!

    …and the IPCC is authoritative and trustworthy. Got it? no laughing now!

    Please see that our provincial and national environment ministers realize that investors in renewable energy were pushing the case through IPCC and reviewing their own work to make their case. Holy Shades of Climategate Batman!

  3. A point to consider…. Greenpeace has substantial investments if that is their investment income. (see below)

    Greenpeace Fund, Inc. Statement of Activities
    (year ended December 31, 2009)
    2007 2008 2009
    Support and Revenue

    Investment Returns 1,639,393 -7,314,547 -1,821,177

    Total Support and Revenue 40,002,715 483,887 5,183,833

    It appears that they are writing the energy reports, contributing them to the IPCC. Further the same person who appears on the authors list is reviewing the reports that push and PROMOTE Alternative Energy.

    Maybe Barbara could pack up her research on Greenpeace and ask a simple question or two of the stock market minders. As Steve McIntyre points out — in promotion of mining stocks this behavior would be seen as “actionable” — perhaps even criminal. So here is the question “Does Greenpeace hold — or did it hold — renewable energy stocks over the relevant time frames?

    If so, “Would this be considered “Stock Promotion”?”

    It looks like it to me — and yes I gave been involved in ventures where people tried to review/approve their own work. The market punishes you for that deception — even if the regulators give you a pass. Think of BRE-X.

    Somebody use the word criminal — regarding the memo from the MOE people — think about them following these reports where the research has been “corrupted”.

  4. Is this the smoking gun….????

    Sven Teske is listed as a coauthor of this paper/brochure.


    It is in effect a promotion piece for a Solar Industry Association — composed of many companies — some of them public companies I believe. (Time is required to track some down)

    Much of this material seems to have appeared in his later reports. Now it surely is nothing but a promotional piece to promote companies and their sales. So I would have some questions — along the lines of — Was a financial transaction involved? Was a donation paid, a consulting fee, or a stock transfer made for this work and to whom? Was there anything that could be perceived as financial compensation?

    The relevance is that Greenpeace Canada adopted his work as their own… (I filed the reports).

    Greenpeace was of course promoting the work of Sven Teske (Greenpeace after all) to various governments as “independent research” that proved the worth and viability of renewable energy.

    All of this occurred at a time when they admitted they had no idea how to evaluate the safety and efficacy of renewable energy..

    So maybe we just need to “follow the money”. Didn’t Barbara say that?

    Now that we know the ministry of the environment was out to lunch on the evaluation and safety procedures this is even more relevant.

  5. When Dingbats collide with reality…

    Editor in Chief: Stephan Singer
    Technical Editor: Jean-Philippe Denruyter
    Principal Writer Part 1: Barney Jeffries
    Editorial Team Part 1: Owen Gibbons, Ellen Hendrix, Martin
    Hiller, Richard McLellan, Donald Pols


    Stephan Singer has a doctorate in soil carbon cycling and agricultural fertility.

    “AN ADDITIONAL 1,000,000
    * Source: The Ecofys Energy Scenario, December 2010

    IF 0.3% OF THE
    Source: Bridgette Meinhold, Desertec Foundation, 2009

    And if the Queen had certain organs? — What would she be….????

    I suspect that Stephen Singer does not have a PhD in Electrical Engineering , mechanical engineering or civil engineering. If so he might have moderated his claims.

    Stephan Singer has a doctorate in soil carbon cycling and agricultural fertility.

    Jean-Philippe Denruyter is a Bio-Engineer with a specialisation in Water and Forests

    Perhaps they can add some technical people before they embarrass themselves again and write a report that conflicts with Greenpeace — the known experts in energy engineering matters.

    I am sure that Barbara could have some fun with these guys.

  6. If I knew that fact I have since forgotten it David.

    I do know they are useless at 17% in the summer – and at 30% in the winter.

    I’m extrapolating that to 40% now and …

    I still compute them as useless.

  7. According to a fellow who posts as “Scientist for Truth”:

    Sven Teske is an IPCC Lead Author and longtime Greenpeace activist and employee. He has been with Greenpeace since 1994, and a leading Greenpeace Campaigner in Germany since 1995.

    Some conflict of interest! How about vested interest as well? Sven Teske founded Greenpeace Energy and was on the board from its inception in 1999, and is still on the supervisory board. Greenpeace Energy has a vested interest in ‘renewable’ power and turned over 79 million Euros in 2010, supplied 448 million kWh electricity (2010) and currently boasts over 100,000 customers.

    See here…

    Any German Speakers who can see if Sven Teske is still on the Supervisory Board?

    Now if this is true — for 10 points — can you answer the question: “Why is Greenpeace shamelessly promoting renewable energy and wind power in particular and falling in love with solar?”.

    What is the link with the Sierra Club — if any? Anyone know?

    Any further questions? Can I go back to work?

  8. Gotcha!

    From their web site! It took a bit of hunting.

    Greenpeace Energy eG
    Schulterblatt 120, 20357 Hamburg

    Postfach 306337, 20329 Hamburg

    Tel: 040 / 808 110-300
    Fax: 040 / 808 110-333
    E-Mail: info(ät)greenpeace-energy.de

    Amtsgericht Hamburg GnR 1002, eingetragen 16.11.1999
    Vorstand: Dr. Steffen Welzmiller, Robert Werner
    Aufsichtsrat: Brigitte Behrens (Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende), Thomas Hauswaldt (stellv. Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender), Klaus-Dieter Hagen, Hubert Kneußel, Jörg Rohwedder, Sven Teske
    USt.-Id.Nr. DE206926103
    Steuer-Nr. 42/726/00053 Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark

    Bankverbindung: Bank für Sozialwirtschaft, BLZ 251 205 10, Kto. 8 457 501

    Robert Werner
    Greenpeace Energy eG, Schulterblatt 120, 20357 Hamburg

    Case closed.

    Does this answer my previous question?

    Follow the money….

  9. Even Adrew Revkin is piling on the Junk Science…


    Of course, my issue with the report from the get-go was the yawn factor. It was yet another study implying that renewable energy choices — in theory, and in the face of high costs* and other daunting constraints — could be the dominant source of reductions in emissions by mid-century.

    Yes, and we could all stop driving tomorrow, but we won’t.

    The new and legitimate issues raised over this energy report are particularly important as a test of the climate panel’s readiness to live up to its new pledge to be responsive to criticism as it prepares to release a report on climate and disasters later this year and then its far bigger suite of assessments coming in 2013 and 2014.

    To me it will be more interesting when the commercial connection is examined.

    It’s all about the money.

  10. And yet one more nail in the coffin of junk science and renewable energy scams. Why are these technologies being promoted by the IPCC and pushed on gullible government ministers? Could it be because the people who write the reports have a financial interest? Nawwww! Couldn’t be that simple could it?


    On the other hand…


    Isn’t it a bit odd, that a policy director of Greenpeace should be a lead author of a report? Isn’t the IPCC supposed to start from a policy-neutral perspective? After all, what would we make of such a report if it found the opposite way, and it turned out that one of its lead authors was a director of a free-market think-tank that stood accused of being funded by Exxon?

    Teske doesn’t appear to be named as a lead author of the new IPCC report. Maybe he didn’t have anything to do with the SPM. The following people, did, however, and I’ve located their profiles online.

    Coordinating Lead Authors:

    Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany) – Co-Chair of Working Group III of the IPCC – deputy director and chief economist of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
    Ramon Pichs‐Madruga (Cuba) – Researcher at the Centre for World Economy Studies (CIEM), Havana.
    Youba Sokona (Ethiopia/Mali) – Executive Secretary of the Observatory of the Sahara and the Sahel (OSS).
    Kristin Seyboth (Germany/USA) – Senior Scientist, Technical Support Unit, IPCC Working Group III.

    Lead Authors:

    A sample…

    Arun Kumar (India) – Vice President, Development Alternatives (global sustainable development NGO).
    Anthony Lewis (Ireland/United Kingdom) – {no profile found}
    Oswaldo Lucon (Brazil) – Technical Advisor on Energy and Climate Change at the São Paulo State Environmental Secretariat, PhD in ‘Energy’ and a MSc in ‘Clean Technology’.
    Patrick Matschoss (Germany) – Head of the Technical Support Unit of IPCC Working Group III.
    Lourdes Maurice (USA) – Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Environment in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Environment and Energy.
    Catherine Mitchell (United Kingdom) – Professor of Energy Policy at Exeter University.
    William Moomaw (USA) – Professor of International Environmental Policy and Director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy.
    José Moreira (Brazil) – Chairman of the Brazilian Reference Center on Biomass, Brazil.
    Alain Nadai (France) – Senior Research Fellow at the Centre International de Recherche pour l’Environnement et le Développement, PhD in environmental economics.
    Lars J. Nilsson (Sweden) – Professor, energy systems analysis, and energy and climate policy University of Lund.
    John Nyboer (Canada) – Founder Member, MKJA Energy Policy Consultants; Research Associate and Adjunct Professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management.
    Atiq Rahman (Bangladesh) – Executive Director of the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (think tank); “Environment and Development Specialist”.


    Each of these authors, work, as far as I can tell, in one or more of four sectors: private energy and policy consulting; non-governmental organisations; academia, and government/intra-government. Their jobs are very much attached to renewable energy. That is to say that, of all the people in the world, it would hard to find a group less critical of ‘renewable energy’. It is precisely as if oil executives were to decide about the future of renewable energy, and had come up with the opposite outcome.

    It is no surprise that environmental bureaucrats believe renewable energy can power the world. It is no surprise that environmental economists and other social scientists with an interest in renewable energy also believe that their research can change the world (and bring in a few research grants and raise their academic profiles at the same time). It is no surprise that renewable energy consultants believe that the world needs the services of renewable energy consultants. And it is no surprise that directors of environmental NGOs are in favour of policies that bring them closer to power.



    Well — what do you think? Were people with vested interests promoting wind power in Ontario? Surely Not!

    Was Greenpeace financing the efforts — surely not! But maybe we should ask some questions as to who was pushing the efforts and financing the lobbyists — other than our tax dollars.

  11. Alternate Electricity has to be looked at globally..Canada as a market is nothing..but they want your money.
    There is an entire 3rd world that requires electricity that you along with developed nations are expected to pay for….if we prove IWTs are not reliable and expensive , globally it will be a negative impact for IWT companies…and many of these companies are huge.
    That is why they are buying out ECO groups , like Sierra Club , Tides etc…if they fail here , it will mean Billions of lost profits elsewhere….
    It appears as well that some in the Province have been purchased as well.
    Wjat idiot would do a deal paying 84-58 cents a kilowatt that isn’t being greased?

  12. In Canada the Sierra Club developed from Greenpeace and Greenpeace activists were involved in the passage of the Ontario Green Energy Act.

    It’s disturbing that foreign international influence can be but not yet proven has “invaded” Ontario energy policy

  13. The VP of the WWF is apparently a Review Editor for Working Group 2, Chapter 15 of the lPCC report. According to the article below, the WWF have a $60 billion incentive.

    “Backed by a $30 million grant from the World Bank, the WWF has already partnered in a pilot scheme to manage 20 million acres in Brazil. If their plans get the go-ahead in Mexico at the end of the year, the forests will be worth over $60 billion in “carbon credits”, paid for by consumers in “rich” countries through their electricity bills …”


    • The CO2 racket has to be kept going until something else to sell can be found to replace CO2. Maybe CH4?

Comments are closed.