From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Keywords: energy environment press
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:35:36 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <C1Ex2r.KxE@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.
Yoder) writes:

[stuff deleted].

# >asked to write sections in the report. The introduction, and the final
# >chapter are written by Jeremy Legget the UK Scientific Director of
# >Greenpeace. 
#  
# OK, one Greenpeace Director (with what credentials?  Is he an atmospheric
# chemist?)...

Dr. Jeremy Legget, is Director of Science at Greenpeace UK. Before
joining Greenpeace in 1989, he spent 11 years on the Department of
Geology of the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. He
has written over fifty scientific papers, won two awards for his 
research and was appointed a Reader at the age of 33. He has sat on
several advisory committees for the UK Natural Environment Research 
Council and has had articles on environmental issues and science policy
in the New Scientist, and various UK national newspapers.
  
# >The section in the science of global warming was written by
# >Stephen Schneider and draws mainly on the IPCC report on global warming,
# >in short this is based on work already done and widely accepted in the
# >field. 
#  
# ...Plus one self-admitted liar (I have seen his rationalizations justifying
# scientific dishonesty in order to achieve political ends in full context)
whose
# honesty and positions are not RacceptedS by any serious scientist I know...

So, the head of the US Interdisciplinary Climate Systems at the US
National Center for Atmospheric Research, editor of the Climate Change
journal and author of the book, Global Warming, which received the
American Meteorological Society's Louis Battan award is not taken 
seriously by the scientific community?!!!!Please tell me:

What did he admit lying about? What were his reasons? Please
give references on this matter. 


# >Amory Lovins gave his expertise on energy matters
# >to the writing energy efficiency essay. 
#  
# ...Plus a butterfly scientist who is also seriously dishonest and
non-objective
# in his scientific evaluations.  This is the guy who railed against the
possible
# use of cold fusion devices because they might produce cheap clean power...

Just what is a 'butterfly scientist'? 
Dr Amory Lovins, is Director of Research at Rocky Mountain Institute, 
a public charity whose research is used by over 160 energy utilities and
related organisations in 30 countries.He's published a dozen books and
hundreds of papers on energy issues. Formerly an Oxford don, he's
had various academic chairs , hold five honorary doctorates and has
served on the US Dept. of Energy's senior advisory board. He's
received the Onassis prize and the 'Alternative Nobel Prize'. 

Now tell me about his seriously dishonest non objective evaluations.
I want references, and evidence to show that he has made claims
that are wrong, and that he knew it. This man seems to me, as with
Stephen Schneider, to be widely respected in his field. I doubt
if the organisations above would lightly allow him to serve with them,
give him prizes or honorary doctorates, if they thought as you do.

As to your claim about his comments on cold fusion. I seem to remember
someone arguing against a cheap 'clean' energy source on the grounds
that it would allow us to carry on much as we are doing now, and 
apart from lower environmental damage from energy sources, continue
in the pollution, destruction of forests, overgrazing of lands leading
to soil erosion and desertification, that characterises our society
today. I sympathise with the reasoning, but dissaggree with the
opposition to such an energy source. However I do think that there
would be a danger that we'd follow that path, but it is a poor reason
for opposing what would potentially be part of the solution! If
Lovins made it clear that he opposed cold fusion on those grounds then
I'd say he'd made an error of judgement, based on the fact that it would
remove one of the incentives for using our energy more efficiently.
Given the well documented scope for doing that, I can understand the
reasoning, but again would not chuck the baby out with the bathwater.
In short I think he's made a mistake(assuming this claim is true, but
I'm sure you'll give me the references and quote the words for me).

#  
# >I have seen his research in many
# >publications and have seen it confirmed independently by other people
# >in other publications. 
#  
# Lovins is one of the least honest scientists I have encountered (which is
to
# say that heUs not a scientist at all, but a politician using science as a 

Lovins is a scientist by training( a physicist), but through his work
which, by showing the immense possibilities for cutting energy
consumption, has clashed with the assumptions and views of those
in charge of energy policy, has been drawn into the politics. He now
promotes policies which he believes will encourage energy efficiency
and so in this sense is a politician. But he has LOTS of evidence to
back up his claims that energy efficiency is both cheap and has
a huge potential(current energy use could be cut in half at least, by
using energy efficient technology, CHP, super efficient housese etc...)
And this evidence has been confirmed by other organisations
independently and in many countries.
 
# bludgeon).  Who were these RindependentS confirmation people?  Folks
# like Schneider, Ehrlich, Caldicott, Sagan, and the like?

None of the above people. Just the Worldwatch Institute(who incidently
don't seem to use his work, they generally confirm it for themselves),
Walter C Patterson of friends of the Earth( a nuclear physicist
by training), Vattenfall the Swedish State Power Board, have found
a potential to get rid of that country's nuclear program, support a
54% increase in GDP, reduce CO2 output by a third and reduce the 
cost of electrical services by $1 billion/yr, The Electrical Power
Research Institute seems to come up with similar figures to Lovins
for the potential of electric efficiency. See below for further details.
  
# >I have no reason to doubt that the figures he gives are untrue. 
#  
# I have no reason to doubt their falsehood myself, ut is that what you
# meant to say?

Oops a typo. Obviously not. And I can give many sources for his claims
about energy efficiency, some are in my essay for starters. I may well
post more.
  
# >Most of the research in this report, is stuff that
# >I've seen time and again in other reports from other organisations.
#  
# You mean other organizations like Earth Watch, The Sea Shepherd Society,
# and the Sierra Club?  These folks love to quote one anotherUs studies.

Funnily enough none of the above organisations are amongst those I'm
even familiar with, let alone the ones that can confirm Lovins's work.  

# >The
# >sources given do not seem to be biased towards environmentalist groups,
# >and is very wide ranging and comprehensive. 
#  
# Really?  Folks like Schneider and Lovins are rabid environmentalists who
# admittedly view this as a political rather than a scientific issue (I can
post
# the appropriate quotes proving this if you like).

Firstly to clarify what I meant by that remark. That is that the 
references that the writers of the Greenpeace report give don't seem
overly biased towards environmental organisations. For example apart
from RMI, Lovins used the following organisations and journals as
sources for his figures:

The Electric Power Research Institute
The Wall Street Journal
Energy Policy.
Science.
US General Accounting Office.
Swedish State Power Board.
World Resources Institute.

These are from references that specifically didn't include his own
work in the Greenpeace report.

# >Each chapter gets around
# >70 odd references, many of which give multiple sources for their data.
#  
# Creationists do the same thing, but you don;t believe them do you?

The references often give sources such as government reports,
the IPCC reports, scientific journals, articles in the press, reports
from individual scientists, the conclusions of scientific conferences,
organisations such as the World Bank, UNEP, Food and Agricultural 
Organisation(FAO), World Meteorological Organisation, World Health
Organisation, Interior Department, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Council for Energy Awareness, shall I go on? 
  
# >In short, this book at least provides credible sources 
#  
# The sources you mentioned are utterly laughable.  They are among the 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is debatable.

# most dishonest people in the scientific world I know of.  IUm not saying
that

Oh well, give us the evidence then, and I mean referenced evidence so
I can check it out myself.

# everyone on the other side of this issue is necessarily dishonest.  There
# are some serious scientists who are worried about ozone depletion, and
# perhaps for valid reasons, but the folks you mentioned are quite dishonest.

Sorry, but your claims here are what I find laughable, I suppose I
should have mentioned all these organisations before, and the
credentials of the people I named from the Greenpeace report.
 
# >for the data, and draws and the expertise of many scientists 
# >who are experts in their fields. 
#  
# Lovins is an expert in atmospheric chemistry?  

No. He's an expert on energy technologies, funnily enough the field he
was writing about in the report.You see I think I should make it clear
how this report is organised. It is split into various chapters where
one writer puts forwards some of their work, in the field in which they
have their expertise. So Schneider, a meteorologist writes about the
global warming models, stating how they were constructed, the data
fed into them, their limitations etc.., Lovins has his essay on energy
efficiency, the field in which he has some impressive knowledge. None
of the writers are writing outside their field, with the exception
of Dr. Legget when he writes the introduction giving an overview of the
situation and why this report is being done, the first chapter giving
a summary of concepts behind global warming. In the final chapter he
gives  Greenpeace's position, and the particular policies and
objectives that Greenpeace believe we should follow.
 
# >The pinch of salt is not really needed.
#  
# DonUt use a pinch of salt...toss the whole report.  If Lovins and Schneider
# are involved, itUs all suspect.

Sorry but you'll really need to provide evidence of this.
Otherwise your claims are what's suspect.

James

-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *