Hardly worth getting excited about:
Last night, the IPCC said it had been made clear that the 77 per cent figure was only one of the estimates made from the models and that Mr Teske was just one of 120 researchers who had worked on the report. (1)I mean, is that really worth soiling our bedsheets?
He was one of NINE authors who contributed to ONE chapter of the report. His affiliation with Greenpeace was clearly stated, and not revealed, by "the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre," as Mark Lynas (who really should know better) claims (2).
In addition to his co-authors, there were co-ordinating authors and reviewers. He did not write the Techical Summary or the Summary For Policy Makers.
What is the fuss about? Are the IPCC not supposed to ask experts to contribute because of alleged potential bias? That sets an interesting precedent with regards the likes of Christie and Lindzen.
Still, always good to see how close to the bottom of the barrel the Ostrich Brigade are.
1 - "Climate change panel in hot water again over 'biased' energy report," by Oliver Wright. Published in The Independent, 16th of June, 2011.
2 - "Questions the IPCC must now urgently answer," by Mark Lynas. Posted on his blog, 17th of June, 2011. (http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/)