The author in question was Sven Teske. I had planned on doing an in-depth biography of him for curious readers following the story. After a few minutes of research, I realized my job was mostly already done for me by another blogger Donna Laframboise, who has the excellent blog NoFrakkingConsensus. I helped Donna as a citizen reviewer for the IPCC citizen's audit. I can say with near certainty that no one has looked into the IPCC more thoroughly than she has.

So I e-mailed Donna and asked if I could re-post Teske's background here. She agreed (thanks Donna!), and here it is. It's from this article written way back in Jan 2010 about Greenpeace's links to the IPCC. She wrote about two other Greenpeace IPCC reviewers before, and Teske is the third and last. Donna warned that some links may be outdated. Everything in between the following headings is from her post here.

Sven Teske's background

The third Greenpeace representative given official standing as an IPCC reviewer is Sven Teske. When a Greenpeace protest vessel shut down Europe’s largest coal port in 2005, Teske was on board. Described as a renewable energy expert, he declared:

Climate change is now the single biggest threat facing our planet…Greenpeace is here today to expose Europe’s dangerous addiction to coal.

Elsewhere, he insists that: “Renewable energy is the true answer” to coal’s shortcomings [italics added]. According to this bio, Teske has a BSc in engineering and a masters in “wind energy technology.” Curiously, a 1995 Greenpeace press release described him as a “nuclear expert” [screengrab here].

In April 2009, Teske was one of two speakers at a “Public Forum on Climate Justice” held in Ottawa, Canada. Although he resides in Amsterdam, a month later he was quoted in a Greenpeace press release calling for Canadian “political leadership” on green issues. A month after that, he called Australia “a global climate change pariah.”

Teske is a co-author of a Greenpeace publication titled “New Zealand Energy Revolution: How to Prevent Climate Chaos. It features a forward by (and photograph of) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman.

In 2006, Greenpeace released another report in conjunction with the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (a solar power lobby group). Teske is described as the “Greenpeace Co-ordinator and scenario analyst” in its credits and his name is one of two appearing at the end of that document’s forward.

This attractive, 50-page publication is an extended brochure of the sort distributed by solar energy marketing departments. Although it is data and graph-intensive, it contains a grand total of four footnotes. Although it mentions external documents in passing, no list of full citations is provided.

Thus, we read on page 14 that, “According to a WHO study, as many as 160,000 people are dying each year as a result of climate change.” Should we care to double-check this claim, we’re on our own.[a critique of the WHO study]

As incredible as it sounds, this publication/brochure is itself cited in the Nobel-winning IPCC report as evidence that a particular statement is true. Appearing in the list below as Greenpeace 2006, it is one of two references mentioned in a single sentence, as discussed above.

Which begs an important question: how did it get into the same room with serious scholars? Why would it even be under consideration by a scientific body tasked with producing an assessment of the latest scientific research?

There appears to be an interesting chronology here. First Teske is granted “scientific expert reviewer” status by the IPCC. Second, a non-academic, non-peer-reviewed document in which he was closely involved gets added to the climate change research canon by virtue of it being cited by the Nobel-winning report.

Third, Teske co-authors a new Greenpeace report that receives an extra measure of prestige when it features a forward authored by the high-profile IPCC chairman. Fourth, in a final flourish, Teske – like his Greenpeace colleauge von Goerne – gets elevated to lead author status of yet another IPCC special report (on renewable energy) due to be published this year.

Where does Greenpeace stop and the IPCC begin? Sometimes it’s difficult to tell.

[Well said, and recent events have made that even more true today.]

Environmental activist, renewable energy advocate, and IPCC author

Should Sven Teske have been an IPCC author on the renewable energy report? Well, he clearly has been involved with Greenpeace for a long time. That alone might be enough to disqualify him. Why? The IPCC is supposed to provide policymakers with the unbiased information they need to make decisions, not to prescribe certain policies themselves. Greenpeace is a campaigning organization to advocate for certain policy positions.

Sven Teske is Greenpeace International's renewables director. Can we expect the director of Greenpeace's renewable energy program to simply play an informative role and not be unbiased? No, and Sven Teske shows that. He is blatantly an advocate for renewable energy, especially solar.

For example, read this interview with Teske about solar power. Or read an article he penned himself entitled The Energy Revolution has Begun. In both he is advocating a massive effort towards renewable energy, including a massive amount of money.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to him in remarks made to a group of Argentinians before Copenhagen fell apart:

Developing countries paying $100 billion a year. I can't believe anyone every thought that was viable.

Sven Teske has every right to advocate for renewable energy. He can even try to get governments to take our money and give it to other countries. But we must be clear what he is: a biased advocate for renewable energy. This disqualifies him from taking part in the IPCC report, if the IPCC wants to be unbiased. Quoting a Greenpeace/solar energy industry report and inviting the author on board is not unbiased. In fact, they even issued a press release with the primary claim (80% renewables by 2050) taken from that Greenpeace/solar energy industry report.

I think this is a crossroads for the IPCC. In the past, they have reacted very poorly to negative criticism. They circled the wagons and pretended there was nothing wrong. If they try that again, I can't imagine anyone who would take them seriously. Who could ever repeat the "gold standard of science" claim with a straight face again?

He noticed my wife's shirt which mentioned a state from which he had previously lived. We talked briefly about where we had lived, and why we had moved, which led to a discussion about my new job. Breaking the conventional rules of social conversation, I started talking politics. I mentioned that I was a libertarian, and he said he was a conservative. We talked a bit about politics in general.

At some point he told me his age - 85 this year - and I asked where he had worked previously. He said he was a biochemist who did research at Michigan State and other universities. It isn't everyday you meet a biochemist (particularly in laundromats), so I began plying him with questions about various things. For an 85 year old man, his mind was very sharp.

Of course, I'd already broached politics, so I figured it couldn't hurt to ask about climate change. I thought he might have a unique perspective on the issue, belonging to a sort of older generation of scientists (think Freeman Dyson). I was right. He had some fairly conventional skeptical views on the science behind climate change, believing they have vastly overstated their case and assigned far too much confidence to their knowledge of the future. But it was his view of the chemistry that was interesting.

Now, his statements here are from memory, after all, this was an offhand discussion in a laundromat. So I'm paraphrasing here. And, I asked for his e-mail address, hoping he might write up some remarks and let me post them. But he doesn't have e-mail. You'll get the gist of it though.

He was indignant that CO2 was labelled pollution. He told me that carbon is the entire basis for his field, organic chemistry. He said that the carbon which is present in every living thing comes (directly or indirectly) from CO2. In other words, Carbon dioxide allows for carbon-based life, or even more simply, CO2=life. To call this pollution is unthinkable.

While I'm sure many rational people believe this, it is nice to hear a knowledgeable scientist reaffirm it. The next time you hear someone say "carbon pollution", remember this equation:

CO2=Life

It is excellent, and I highly recommend reading it. It is here.

For one of the best and most concise synopsis of the issues, read this paragraph:

Let me summarize how the key issues appear to me, a working scientist with a better background than most in the physics of climate. CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and other things being equal, adding the gas to the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and natural gas will modestly increase the surface temperature of the earth. Other things being equal, doubling the CO2 concentration, from our current 390 ppm to 780 ppm will directly cause about 1 degree Celsius in warming. At the current rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere—about 2 ppm per year—it would take about 195 years to achieve this doubling. The combination of a slightly warmer earth and more CO2 will greatly increase the production of food, wood, fiber, and other products by green plants, so the increase will be good for the planet, and will easily outweigh any negative effects. Supposed calamities like the accelerated rise of sea level, ocean acidification, more extreme climate, tropical diseases near the poles, and so on are greatly exaggerated.

That is practically my exact same position, except I might put a line in there emphasizing just how little we actually know about the climate, and how "other things being equal" isn't likely to happen.

Go read it.

Children are impressionable. They don't have much previous experience or knowledge stored away in their little brains, so they aren't able to judge the accuracy of factual information very easily.

This isn't a knock against children. In fact, it is one of the delightful things about them. I have two young girls, and watching them learn about the world around them is incredibly fascinating. They don't have preconceptions about how things work. They simply don't know yet.

This "blank slate" is necessary for an individual's development. Animals are born knowing more or less what they need to know for their entire lives. Babies aren't. They must learn an incredible amount of information about the world around them. This is good, because it allows all individuals to tailor their knowledge to their various environments. A child born in Japan doesn't get the same information as an American child, which is good because they will not end up living the same life. Indeed, this distinction goes far beyond national borders and is different for every family, and every single child. No two lives are the same, and a child's incredible ability to learn from their environment ensures that they will get the specific information they need to live their own life. (As an aside, this fact has serious implications for the way our current educational system is set up.)

While being impressionable is desirable and unavoidable for children, it also carries great risk. There are two possible ways a child's impressionability can lead to their belief in false information:

1. Children can interpret their perceptions about the world around them in the wrong way.

2. Children can be given false information directly by adults or other children.

In the first example, a child might notice their parents always bringing an umbrella on days when it rains outside. They could falsely conclude that umbrellas cause rain. While these types of mistakes are common, they are usually corrected by later observations or by an adult's explanation.

In the second example, a parent might tell their child that the world is flat. You and I know the world isn't flat, but on what basis would the child object? They don't know anything about the sun's origins or composition, about gravity or the earth's rotation, they probably haven't even seen a picture of the earth from space. They will accept the earth's flatness without question.

The insidious part of learning false information from others is that it is not based on observation. When an erroneous belief is founded in observation, it is likely that later observations will correct the belief. After all, the initial belief was based in observation, and they came to the conclusion by themselves.

This correction is less likely to happen when the false belief is founded in someone else's word. If they later observe something which contradicts such a belief, they don't have the original observation to compare against. How can they know which what to believe? Well, they can ask the source. But if that source also has false information (or is downright deceptive) the child will not learn the truth.

I'm not claiming that all learning must be based on observation. That wouldn't be possible. My point is that adults must be very careful how they teach children. If they are allowed to observe the world and draw their own (possibly false) conclusions, they will be in much better shape then if they were simply told all those conclusions first. Of course it cannot be one or the other, but I think adults must attempt to tip the scales towards observation.

What is the harm in simply telling them the correct conclusions first? It undermines their ability to make the link between their observations and how the world works. Perhaps even more importantly, it undermines their ability to correct their own false interpretations of their observations.

Here is an example. A girl is sitting in the back of a car in early summer on a sunny but cool day. The car doesn't have AC, and she is very hot. She wonders why the car is so hot. She remembers that when she was sick last week, Mommy would feel her forehead and proclaim that she felt hot. Therefore, she concludes that the car is sick.

Later in the summer, during a very hot and sunny day, she notices that when she is in the sunshine she feels hot, and it feels cooler in the shade. She gets into the car again, but this time it dawns on her: the car isn't sick, the sun it making the car hot! Being a smart girl, she promptly advises her Mother to park in the shade next time.

Now if she had simply asked her Mother earlier, she would have learned that the sun warms the car. But this would only contradict her earlier belief of the car's sickness based on Mommy's word alone. When she later observes the warming and cooling of the sun, she won't even attempt to make the link to the car being hot; she already knows that. The burden of learning new information went from herself to her Mother.

This brings me to climate change. Children are not experiencing climate change (they simply haven't lived long enough). They cannot observe it happening, especially in America where there has been very little change in temperature at all. Since they cannot observe it, everything they know about it comes from being told about it.

There's nothing inherently wrong about that. After all, teaching history allows for very few observations to be made. But there is a fundamental difference in the teaching of history and the teaching of climate change. The teaching of history does not make claims about the future of the human race, and it does not demand that certain actions be taken.

When children are taught about climate change, it is to provoke action. The future of the planet is already certain, unless action is taken. The earth will warm significantly and have a devastating impact on mankind. Unless we act now. Don't believe this is what's being taught? Take a look at the following quote from children:

Our future is in jeopardy, and our Earth won’t even be worth inheriting because of the decisions that the leaders of our country are making. - 10 year old


I became an activist four years ago, when I was 12, after seeing Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” and getting into a heated argument with my best friend about it.....I believe that if we want to reverse global warming before it’s too late, it will take a revolution. A revolution that that has to change the mindset of every person on this planet, so that we value nature and the future of our generation more than profits and power. - 16 year old


I don't like global warming, because it kills animals, and I like animals....I worry about it, because I don't want to die. - 9 year old

These children aren't anomalies. According to one survey:

This report presents the findings of a telephone survey conducted among a national sample of 500 PRE-TEENS comprising 250 males and 250 females 6 to 11 years of age, living in private households in the continental United States,” says the press release. The survey “finds that one out of three children ages 6–11 years old fear that the planet won’t exist when they grow up and more than half (56%) believe that the Earth will not be as good a place to live.

Or this survey:

A United Kingdom survey, by the Somerfield supermarket chain, of 1,150 youngsters age 7 to 11 found that half felt anxious about global warming -- and many were losing sleep over it, convinced that animal species will soon die out and that they, themselves, will be victims of global warming.

As I said before, this isn't based on children's observations. It is entirely based on the word of parents, teachers, and folks like Al Gore.

This fear of climate change harms children. When a person loses a sense of control over his life, he is far more likely to become depressed and develop other personality disorders. These poor children have been told that the world is being irrevocably damaged, and since they have no reason to challenge it, they readily accept it. This leads to, at best, a general sense of anxiety and uncertainty about the future, and at worst an outright fear of death. Look at what the children are saying! They fear death, they say the planet will be uninhabitable, they say the planet won't even exist, they worry about species extinction, they essentially believe that the human race is doomed to die.

What a terrible way to grow up! How incredibly perverted their entire perception of the world must be. We are raising a generation that believes mankind is rapidly committing suicide.

Since their belief in climate change isn't founded in observation, it will not likely be altered by observation. This is sad because without being taught this fear a child would not naturally develop it. So why are we doing it?

Adults who believe in climate change automatically go to the scariest worst case scenarios in order to convince others there is a problem. Massive sea level increases, massive temperature increases, floods, hurricanes, famine - you name it, climate change will cause it or make it 100 times worse. I think that they know, deep down, it is unlikely these things will really happen. Maybe a few will, and certainly the planet will be worse off, but they don't believe the planet will literally be uninhabitable in only one generation. However, they justify using these scenarios because without them, no one will listen and no one will take action.

The adults who hear this might also get scared, and wish to take action, but they also know, deep down, it is unlikely that all of those disasters will happen or that the planet will no longer exist in a few years. Adults understand this through experience. They have seen claims about other things before, they know how exaggeration works even if they believe in the core of the claim. They know no one can predict the future exactly.

Children don't have experience! They genuinely and honestly believe every catastrophic claim and every dire scenario. They don't know people can't predict the future. Certain climate doom awaits them.

Adults who preach climate catastrophe need to examine their impact on children. When they make sweeping claims about our future with absolute certainty, they should stop and think "what are the implications of a child accepting this claim unreservedly?".

I respect everyone's right to express their beliefs, and to try and get support from others to change society. I don't want to see millions of children frightened for their futures. Our parents and grandparents lived in a slightly cooler world than we do, and our children are likely to live in a slightly hotter world. There may be some negative impacts of that, there may be benefits. We don't know. Let's let our kids grow up and decide for themselves if their lives are worth living, and if our planet is worth inheriting.

This story at Scientific American covers it very well. I recommend reading it.

Here's the problem. The IPCC has different categories of renewable energy. They include solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, ocean, and biomass. Biomass is by far the largest category, it constitutes 79% of all renewable energy. Biomass is broken down into two groups: modern and traditional. Modern biomass is the smaller group at 38%. That means that the IPCC considers the largest single source of renewable energy in the world to be traditional biomass. This image from the report says it all (click to view):

Why is this a problem? Look at their definition of traditional biomass:

Traditional biomass is defined by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as biomass consumption in the residential sector in developing countries and refers to the often-unsustainable use of wood, charcoal, agricultural residues, and animal dung for cooking and heating. All other biomass use is defined as modern [Annex I].

Traditional biomass means cooking on wood stoves, it means difficult wood collection (done mostly by women), it means smoke inhalation and deforestation. Basically, traditional biomass is another way of saying abject poverty. It means no access to energy at all. Calling traditional biomass renewable energy is more than a strech.

It is bad enough that they are considering a lack of access to energy to actually be renewable energy, but what is even worse is that they consider it half of world's total amount of renewable energy!

I mentioned this to a colleague, and he told me it was even worse yet. Burning wood and charcoal creates black carbon. This aerosol is considered to have a warming impact on the atmosphere. Isn't one of the primary goals of renewable energy to combat climate change? After all, the report itself says (pg. 3):

As well as having a large potential to mitigate climate change, RE can provide wider benefits. RE may, if implemented properly, contribute to social and economic development, energy access, asecure energy supply, and reducing negative impacts on the environment and health [9.2, 9.3].

They claim that renewable energy can mitigate climate change and reduce negative impacts on the environment and health. However, their largest since source of renewable energy, traditional biomass, contributes to climate change by releasing black carbon, and has significantly negative impacts on both the environment, through deforestation, and on health, through smoke inhalation.

Including traditional biomass in a report on renewable energy cannot be defended. How can anyone now support renewable energy when it is defined as burning animal dung to heat your home or cook your food? Removing traditional biomass from the list of renewable energies may cut the UN's number in half, but leaving it in place renders the report useless. As the UN defines it currently, supporting renewable energy means supporting abject poverty.

Here is an example. There are two bloggers, Joe and Roger. Roger has made a claim. Joe disagrees with that claim. Now, Joe is presented with two choices:

1. Joe can point out how Roger is wrong, opening a dialogue with Roger and discussing the issue. This is called discourse, discussion, or communication. It might get heated but both sides have a say and readers can decide for themselves whether or not Roger's claim was false.

2. Joe can point out how Roger is wrong, call his claim "debunked", and never discuss the issue again. Or, if Joe decides to discuss Roger's claim, he'll simply refer to it as "debunked" and dismiss it. This is called debunking. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether or not Roger's claim was accurate based solely on Joe's debunking.

Claims of 'debunked' or 'debunking' are an attempt to claim that your opponent's position is utterly and hopelessly wrong, with no value whatsoever. End of story.

It's childish. Simply pointing out the errors in someone's position does not automatically dismiss it. What if those errors aren't really errors, and the debunker has made a mistake? You need to get a response from the person you are criticizing before you settle the issue! And even if you do find an error, does that error necessarily make then entire claim/paper/study worthless?

To be sure I wasn't being hypocritical, I searched back through my blog for the term "debunked". As far as I can tell, I've never used it. I have pointed out errors in studies before, but I don't pretend that now these reports are "debunked". I personally wouldn't rely on those studies, and I suggest that others don't, but I don't throw on that label as if my word is the final arbiter of accuracy.

However, other bloggers have no problem with using that label. You might have already guessed, but the Joe vs. Roger example above is based in reality. Joe Romm of Climate Progress has gone debunk-crazy over some of Roger Pielke Jr.'s claims. I won't get into details (it really seems like quite a boring contention), but Romm's use of the debunking terminology has reached dizzying heights. Here is the article. All from that article (links not included):

Roger Pielke, Jr. has repeated on his website several false accusations against Al Gore from 2 years ago, which I debunked here and here.

Pielke remains one of the most debunked people in the blogosphere:
[List of his debunkings]

One of Pielke’s most famous false claims in 2009 concerns one slide Gore used in his famous PowerPoint presentation. That false claim led to NYT reporter Andy Revkin falsely equating George Will with Al Gore in an infamous article, “In Climate Debate, Exaggeration Is a Pitfall,” which I debunked at the time.

I am amazed that Pielke would repeat his false claims now — and quote Gore’s office in his defense. He knows that Gore’s office utterly debunked those charges two years ago, and I assume he must know that I would call Gore’s office to confirm once again that Pielke’s entire characterization is false. And I did.

The breakthrough bunch — which includes Pielke and Matt Nisbet — have a very specific false narrative about Gore that is essential to their “blame the victim” attacks on environmentalists and scientists. They want to convince people that environmentalists in general and Gore in particular have knowingly exaggerated the science and purposefully pursued a polarizing message. It isn’t true, and that’s why I’m going to debunk it again. I will deal with Nisbet’s false narrative on this later, though it bears repeating that 2 of the 5 original expert reviewers Nisbet chose disputed his attack on Gore.

There is no way to explain just how utterly false this all is in a short post. That’s because three separate things that need debunking:

Pielke’s original false accusation on his blog about what Gore said (debunked here)
Revkin’s spinning it up into a major NY Times article accusing Gore of “exaggeration” (debunked here)
Pielke’s counterfactual history of events, which you just read

There you have it. It is so easy to see why Joe is right. Look how many times Romm has debunked Pielke! It is obvious that Pielke has no leg to stand on any longer after that vicious round of debunking.

I can't pick on Romm though. A quick google search reveals that in the online climate change discussion, Romm is far from alone in his use of the term. It is everywhere. What does this mean?

I think it is proof that much of the discussion is really just talking past each other. When someone debunks another, they aren't looking for a discussion. They are looking to end the discussion on their own favorable terms.

Pointing out errors is essential if we want to know the truth about climate change, but only if coupled with discussion of those errors. Without discussion, we look only at how valid the entirely of the claim/paper/study is, and we don't even attempt to understand the particular issues being discussed.

A good real world example is the Nisbet paper. Romm came out immediately and "debunked" it. Then the discussion became about the validity of the paper as a whole, instead of having a discussion about the actual details of the paper. If we only debunk instead of discuss, we are ignoring any potentially beneficial information within.

Shutting down discussion by debunking might be the goal of those who use the term. If not, I think they should reconsider the impact it has on the discussion. It boils down to this:

Person A: Hey did you see that new report by X? He brought up the interesting issue of Y. I think that if you look at the numbers....

Person B: ...No, that was debunked by C.

Person A: Oh. Nevermind.

Here's the gist of the article, from the opening statement:

Hey climate movement, you know what I missed about us that Power Shift pumped right back into me last week?

The awesome.

Yeah, flashmobs, pranks, swiftly organized warroom tweetups, late-night dance parties of 15,000. Remember that rebellious side of us, that “we won’t take the past for an answer” side of us? Remember that “join us because this is awesome and you’re invited” side of us?

I've often felt that "being green" was a fad. I'm going to take this article as evidence to support that belief.

Bonnie believes that flashmobs are awesome. She provides a link, so let's look.

Wow, they shut down a BP gas station. Don't they know that those are franchises, locally owned? They have nothing to do with the BP oil spill. Hmm.....shutting down a local business because of their logo? Not awesome.

Warrooms, tweeting, dancing....these are awesome? You certainly don't need to be in a climate movement to tweet or dance. I've never created a "swiftly organized warroom" so I wouldn't know how awesome that it.

Pranks are awesome? I'd say normally they are pretty stupid. So far this all seems like a typical college campus on the weekend. Is there anything else in her article to make this look like anything more than a college-aged fad?

We’re also proud to define ourselves as what we’re not: we are cooler than the fossil forces of the past. They rail on chalkboards; we rally with giant puppets in the streets. They are talking heads for septuagenarians; we are sneaking into shareholder meetings and embarrassing giant fossil fuel companies. They are snarking about crosshairs on Facebook from defensive compounds in Wasilla. We are 10,000 lithe young people fighting for our future while a crotchety old pitbull like Tom Donohue screams to get off of his front yard at the US Chamber of Commerce. We are in the West Wing interrupting the President of the United States of America to remind him that energy shouldn’t kill.

Wow. If this isn't disdain for older folks I don't know what it.

Giant puppets? Man, is there any reason to take these sophomoric activists seriously?

Other American generations have staked their identities on propositions equally grand – rebelling from tyranny, beating back fascism, defending the world from communism. Our generation is staking its identity as the people responsible enough to face climate science for what it means, and political corruption for what it is. To build a cleaner, leaner, more durable and more prosperous way of life on our full tide of vibrant energy. The people smart enough to put our moral muscle to work.

I wonder what Bonnie thinks "rebelling from tyranny" means. Our nation fought against the British because of taxation. What is Bonnie fighting for? I don't want to put words in her mouth, but my guess is she supports something that rhymes with tarbon caxes.

Her generation is staking its identity as people responsible for dealing with climate change? But wait....I'm a part of her generation! So are some of my friends and family. They don't get their identity from fighting climate change. They do things like, work, or raise their children.

We mustn’t abandon tried-and-true organizing tactics, nor our hard-earned insider game. And if we do rebel our way into a better world, we do so on the shoulders of giants: after all, we’re now defending the Clean Air Act that our foremothers first passed, celebrating Earth Day last week because our forefathers founded the first four decades ago. And we need the scientific white papers still, because after all, we’re fighting for a political reality that keeps pace with the chemical reality of the atmosphere. This is a movement of the young and young at heart – if you are awesome, you are in.

Not surprisingly, those scientific white papers are a link to the IPCC.

A movement for the young and young at heart. Oh, and the awesome. Well sign me up! I'm awesome and young!

But I can't sign up. Why not? Bonnie didn't mention it, but there is one more requirement. A disregard for reason and critical thinking. That's what she really means when she admires pranks, puppets, and youth. I actually employ critical thinking when considering the issues I consider worth fighting for, and that automatically disqualifies me from being a part of this lithe, young, and awesome group.

To summarize a funny blog post, it turns out the site isn't a joke at all. It's a serious site run by Grist. This blew Lubos' mind, how could they be so idiotic? I decided to visit to see just how ridiculous the site was. I thought perhaps it was a bit of tongue in cheek.

While the website is intended to be humorous, the concept of eco-guilt is not pretend. Here is what you see when you first visit the site:

Swear off your evil eco ways forever? Evil! Well, when you click, you are shown this:

So now you are invited to pray to Mother Earth and confess your eco-sins. Apparently, some people enter the eco-confessions booth and simply don't know where to start. That's why the folks at grist have the "Generate Sin" button at the bottom. Here's a list of the generated evil eco-sins:

I use plastic grocery bags because paper sucks and bringing my own cloth bags sucks even worse.

I secretly like to hear reports that global warming isn't real because it decreases my guilt level.

I don't buy recycled paper because it seems dirty.

I justify eating watermelon all year long by telling myself it's always in season somewhere in the world.

I don't have a compost pile because it grosses me out.

I fill my recycle garbage can full of trash and then put a layer of cardboard on the top to hide it.

I think littering is ok as long as it's something small.

I love horsepower more than I love the environment.

I drink bottled water because it makes me feel fancy.

I don't buy organic because that shit's expensive.

I pretend to not know what a carbon footprint is.

I refuse to read that new book or watch that new documentary about how jacked up our food supply is because I don't want to know.

I dress my passenger seat in a jacket and hat and then use the carpool lane.

I want to clip bike commuters who slow down traffic with my side mirrors.

Really, truly pathetic. I was going to comment on each "eco-sin" but I think readers can see why they are just plain stupid.

Alright, so you've either picked a generated eco-sin or you've written your own. Now you click confess, and you see this:

So we need to repeat a our saint's prayer, and sin no more. At this point, I could see how some religious people (Catholics in particular) might get a bit upset. It could be viewed as mocking religion in general, especially once you see what the prayer cards look like. So if you click on the bottom, view prayer card, then you get your very own saint to pray too. There are multiple saints depending on what your eco-sin is. If your eco-sin dealt with global warming, you get to pray to this saint:

There is so much wrong with this. First of all, hurricanes are not increasing, severe weather is not increasing, and weather isn't going to make humans go the way of the dinosaur (at least not because of human activity).

Now, there are a few options you can do once you've confessed your eco-sin and prayed to your eco-saint. You can confess another sin. You can share your sin on Facebook, Twitter, or e-mail it. You can print it off (evangelical material?).

You can also view the Sin gallery. There are some genuine confession there (not many), lots of generated confessions, and lots of satirical confessions like mine. Here's a sampling of some funny ones:

When I've seen greenies jetting all over the globe lecturing other people about climate change I foolishly went on with my life. My bad.

By not driving as much as I should I'm starving mother nature of beneficial carbon dioxide. I promise to do better from now on.

I exhale too much methane .... aaaahhhh ....

I refuse to read newspaper articles telling me how biofuels are hiking food price because contrarily to poor people I can afford it.

I could have killed Al Gore when he was visiting Harvard University but I have shamefully missed the opportunity.

Built a coal fired power station in the back yard

I have posted comments which mock, deride, ridicule and calumniate the believers of CAGW on my anti-pseudo-science blog.

I laughed when they said both the hot and the cold weather was because of global warming.

My personal favorite:

I lit a polar bear on fire

I'm assuming that's a joke anyways.

Well, if after all this eco-guilt has been purged, and you still feel guilty, you can click on the link "Still feeling guilty?". That bring you to the this page:

That's right, if you still have eco-guilt you can buy Grist indulgences! Donating to this pristine non-profit group (as they call it, "join our congregation for good") will presumably earn you a ticket to Mother Earth herself.

You can also subscribe to their weekly newsletter, and their "weekly sinners" option, which they describe as "The week’s best sins handpicked and delivered fresh each week."

I'm fairly certain religious folks will tell you that sin isn't something to joke about. The concept of a Priest compiling the "best sins of the week" during confession and sending them out in an e-mail is blasphemous.

As I said, the website is intended to be funny. But it appears to be at the expense of mocking the Catholic practice of confession. Either that or they are serious, in which case it can no longer be denied that environmentalism is religious. I'd be interested in seeing if those of the Catholic faith find this amusing or offensive. I just find it stupid.

It was a spoof on Romm's vitriolic blog Climate Progress. I introduced a new term in that post: The Romm Romp.

This term is loosely based on the Gish Gallop, which climate skeptics are often accused of employing. The Gish Gallop is a rhetorical technique where you spout off so many "facts" about an issue that your opponent simply cannot respond to all of them.

The Romm Romp is different. It consists of citing yourself repeatedly within the same publication. An unwitting observer might look at all the links within a post and assume that the author has multiple sources for his claims, but in reality he is only citing himself multiple times.

I gave a few examples in my April fools post, but I have the ultimate example of the Romm Romp today. It comes in an April 23'rd post on Climate Progress entitled "What mistakes did the environmental community and progressive politicians make in the climate bill fight: And how do you apportion blame among all parties?"

In this relatively short post, Romm manages to include nine links to his own site. He links to no other site at all. Take a look:

Impressive! All in all, the post is 474 words, 104 of which were links. That's more than 1/5.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that someone who is as prolific as Romm would choose to highlight his own work. People can't sit at their computers all day long, and since Romm posts about 7 articles every day it only makes sense that he would need to link back to some past articles, just to make sure people have a chance to read them all.

I'll say this about Romm. Few people have such belief in their own work that their sole source of information is themselves. That's confidence!

This post deals with the the question of whether or not climate sensitivity should be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly. I asked multiple climate scientists their opinion, and their responses are below. First, some background.

Over at The Blackboard there is an interesting guest post by Zeke. He attempts to find areas where agreement can take place by laying out his beliefs and putting a certain confidence level on them. This idea was commented upon by several blogs and scientists. Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, Jeff Id, and Pielke Sr. all contributed. I want to focus on Pielke's response, because he challenges a core assumption of the exercise.

In Zeke's post, he gives his position on climate sensitivity:

Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system…

Here is Pielke's response to this claim:

The use of the terminology “climate sensitivity” indicates an importance of the climate system to this temperature range that does not exist. The range of temperatures of “1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide” refers to a global annual average surface temperature anomaly that is not even directly measurable, and its interpretation is even unclear...

Pielke goes on to explain that he has dealt with this issue previously in the paper entitled "Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends." Here is the main thrust of his response:

This view of a surface temperature anomaly expressed by “climate sensitivity” is grossly misleading the public and policymakers as to what are the actual climate metrics that matter to society and the environment. A global annual average surface temperature anomaly is almost irrelevant for any climatic feature of importance.

So we know Pielke's position. He is adamantly opposed to using surface temperature anomaly when discussing climate sensitivity, for various reasons, not the least of which is it ignores metrics which actually matter to people.

I haven't heard this view expressed very often, so I decided to contact other climate scientists and find out their opinions on this issue. I asked the following questions and invited them to give their general impressions:

1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?

If yes to Question 1, then:

2. Could you briefly explain why you consider global annual average surface temperature anomaly the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?

If no to question 1, then:

2. What do you believe is the proper metric to discuss climate sensitivity, and could you briefly explain why?

John Christy

1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?

No. The surface temperature, especially the nighttime minimum, is affected by numerous factors unrelated to the global atmospheric sensitivity to enhanced greenhouse forcing (I have several papers on this.) The ultimate metric is the number of joules of energy in the system (are they increasing? at what rate?). The ocean is the main source for this repository of energy. A second source, better than the surface, but not as good as the ocean, is the bulk atmospheric temperature (as Roy Spencer uses for climate sensitivity and feedback studies.) The bulk atmosphere represents a lot of mass, and so tells us more about the number of joules that are accumulating.

Patrick Michaels

I think it is a reasonable metric in that it integrates the response of temperature where it is important--i.e. where most things on earth live. However, it needs to be measured in concert with ocean measurements at depth and with both tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures. For example, if there were no stratospheric decline in temperature, then lower tropospheric or surface rises would be hard to attribute to ghg changes. Because we don't have any stratospheric proxy (that I know of) for the early 20th century, when surface temperature rose about as much as they rose in the late 20th, we really don't know the ghg component of that (though I suspect it was little to none).


Having said that, I suspect that where we do have such data, it is indicative that the sensitivity is lower than generally assumed, but not as low as has been hypothesized by some.

Gavin Schmidt

Your questions are unfortunately rather ill-posed. This is probably not
your fault, but it is indicative of the confusion on these points that
exist.

"Climate sensitivity" is *defined* as being the equilibrium response of
the global mean surface temperature to a change in radiative forcing
while holding a number of things constant (aerosols, ice sheets,
vegetation, ozone) (c.f. Charney 1979, Hansen et al, 1984 and thousands
of publications since). There is no ambiguity here, no choice of metrics
to examine, and no room for any element of belief or non-belief. It is a
definition. There are of course different estimates of the surface
temperature anomaly, but that isn't relevant for your question.

There are of course many different metrics that might be sensitive to
radiative forcings that one might be interested in: Rainfall patterns,
sea ice extent, ocean heat content, winds, cloudiness, ice sheets,
ecosystems, tropospheric temperature etc. Since they are part of the
climate, they will be sensitive to climate change to some extent. But
the specific terminology of "climate sensitivity" or the slightly
expanded concept of "Earth System Sensitivity" (i.e Lunt et al, 2010)
(that includes the impact on the surface temperature of the variations
in the elements held constant in the Charney definition), are very
specific and tied directly to surface temperature.

People can certainly hold opinions about which, if any, of these metrics
are of interest to them or are important in some way, and I wouldn't
want to prevent anyone from making their views known on this. But people
don't get to redefine commonly-understood and widely-used terms on that
basis.

I sent a response to Gavin clarifying my questions, and including Pielke Sr's comments. Here is his response to Pielke' comments:

I disagree. Prof. Pielke might not find the global temperature anomaly
interesting, but lots of other people do, and as an indicator for other
impacts, it is actually pretty good. Large-scale changes in rainfall
patterns, sea ice amount, etc. all scale more or less with SAT. (They
can vary independently of course, and so 'one number' does not provide a
comprehensive description of what's happening).

Kevin Trenberth

1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?

This is not a well posed question. This relates to definition: the sensitivity is defined that way. It is not the best metric for climate change necessarily

If yes to Question 1, then:

2. Could you briefly explain why you consider global annual average surface temperature anomaly the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?

I think the best metric overall is probably global sea level as it cuts down on weather and related noise. But global mean temperature can be carried back in time more reliably and it is reasonably good as long as decadal values are used.

If no to question 1, then:

2. What do you believe is the proper metric to discuss climate sensitivity, and could you briefly explain why?

However, it is all variables collectively that make a sound case

Pielke Sr.

We have already discussed Pielke's position, but I contacted him to find out what metrics he would prefer to use. Here is his response:

1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly
is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?

NO

If yes to Question 1, then:

2. Could you briefly explain why you consider global annual average
surface temperature anomaly the best available metric to discuss
climate sensitivity?

If no to question 1, then:

2. What do you believe is the proper metric to discuss climate
sensitivity, and could you briefly explain why?

The term "climate sensitivity" is not an accurate term to define how the climate system responds to forcing, when it is used to state a response in just the global average surface temperature. This is more than a semantic issue, as the global average surface temperature trend has been the primary metric used to communicate climate effects of human activities to policymakers. The shortcoming of this metric (the global average surface temperature trend) was discussed in depth in


"National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/"


but has been mostly ignored in assessments such as the 2007 IPCC WG1 report.


A more appropriate metric to assess the sensitivity of the climate system heat content to forcing is the response in Joules of the oceans, particularly where most the heat changes occur. I discuss this metric in


Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-334.pdf


Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/10/r-247.pdf


More generally, in terms of true climate sensitivity, more metrics are needed as we discussed in the 2005 NRC report. The Executive summary includes the text [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=4]


"Despite all these advantages, the traditional global mean TOA radiative forcing concept has some important limitations, which have come increasingly to light over the past decade. The concept is inadequate for some forcing agents, such as absorbing aerosols and land-use changes, that may have regional climate impacts much greater than would be predicted from TOA radiative forcing. Also, it diagnoses only one measure of climate change "global mean surface temperature response" while offering little information on regional climate change or precipitation. These limitations can be addressed by expanding the radiative forcing concept and through the introduction of additional forcing metrics. In particular, the concept needs to be extended to account for (1) the vertical structure of radiative forcing, (2) regional variability in radiative forcing, and (3) nonradiative forcing. A new metric to account for the vertical structure of radiative forcing is recommended below. Understanding of regional and nonradiative forcings is too premature to recommend specific metrics at this time. Instead, the committee identifies specific research needs to improve quantification and understanding of these forcings."


It is, therefore, time to move beyond the use of the global annual average surface temperature trend as the metric to define "climate sensitivity".

Differing views

There are clearly differing views on this subject.

John Christy does not support the metric. He points out that the surface temperature is affected by numerous things other than greenhouse forcing, and then gives two metrics which he prefers. The first is the change in joules in the system, with particular emphasis on the oceans. The second is bulk atmospheric temperature.

Patrick Michaels supports using the metric. He points out that the metric is important because it addresses the area where people live. However, he emphasizes that the surface temperature must be taken in concert with measurements such as ocean temperature at depth, and tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures. Without these other measurements, it would be difficult to assess the impact of GHGs on surface temperature.

Gavin Schmidt supports the metric unreservedly. He and Trenberth rightly point out that climate sensitivity is defined by global average surface temperature anomaly. Of course, the point of my question is challenging whether or not this is the best definition. Gavin seems to think so, and points out that the metric is "commonly-understood and widely-used". He states that other metrics such as rainfall patterns and sea ice amount track very well with surface air temperature.

Trenberth is very brief, but states that global average surface temperature anomaly is not necessarily the best metric to use for climate change. He considers that global sea level is a better metric because it cuts down on weather related noise. However, he also points out that global average surface temperature anomaly is useful because it can be applied to the past more reliably. He also states that all variables taken together make a sound case.

Pielke Sr. is adamantly opposed to using this metric. We've already discussed his reasons. He also proposes a different metric for assessing climate sensitivity, "A more appropriate metric to assess the sensitivity of the climate system heat content to forcing is the response in Joules of the oceans". He supports these claims with several of his own papers as well as a NRC report.

Conclusion

Pielke and Christy want to stop assessing climate sensitivity by using global average surface temperature anomaly, and both recommend using a change of joules (particularly in the ocean) as a better metric.

Michaels and Trenberth support the metric while emphasizing that other metrics must also be taken into account. Schmidt does not mention any drawbacks and emphasizes that the metric is already widely used and it works well with other metrics.

It seems to me the main problem here isn't the metric itself, but the emphasis placed on it. I don't believe that Pielke or Christy believe the metric has no value at all, only that it is a poor choice to use as the main metric when discussing CO2's impact on climate. In Pielke's case, the emphasis on CO2 itself is a problem, as he believes that other human impacts are far more important.

Climate science so frequently focuses on CO2 and temperature that it seems natural climate sensitivity would be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly. A shift away from this metric seems unlikely. However, if it can be shown in the future that a change in joules in the ocean directly contradicts other metrics then I'm sure this discussion will come up again. Pielke's paper mentions an apparent contradiction found by Joshua Willis of JPL, although the measurements are only taken over a four year period. Only time will tell which metric is most valuable.