Lots of quick ink: World’s science academies sniff in distain at sloppy IPCC managers. (Footnote – um, the science is just fine)
A study by a formerly obscure but, on paper, quite august group, the InterAcademy Council, issued this morning its findings on the performance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has managed to stub its toes again and again in the last year or so. The council represents national academies of science. Thus, it has ability to sample the opinions of the senior hot shots in the world’s research effort. It gave the IPCC a scolding.
Here are some sample headlines racing through the world wide web from prominent news agencies:
- Daily Hindu – Narayan Lakshman: Sharp criticism for IPCC leadership ;
- Financial Times – Clive Cookson: Call for overhaul at UN climate panel ;
- AP – Seth Borenstein: Report: Climate Science Panel Needs Change at Top;
- Fox News – Jeremy A. Kaplan : Independent Audit Panel Slams U.N.’s Climate Group ;
- NYTimes – Neil MacFarquahar : Review Finds Flaws in U.N. Climate Panel Structure ;
- Bloomberg – Jeremy van Loon: UN Climate Panel Should Change Management, Study Says ;
- Reuters – Louis Charbonneau : U.N. climate panel urged to reform, stick to science ;
Collectively, one must forgive readers, many of whom already doubt the whole global warming worry and may nod yes to suspicions it is a plot by grant-crazy scientists or world-domination-bent collectivist cabals or loonie tree-huggers, if they read those and think the IPCC just got shown to be useless. Never mind that, as Cookson notes in a fashion found in most if not all accounts, the report “did not challenge the fundamental conclusion of IPCC reports that the world needs to tackle man-made climate change by reducing emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”
Rather, as the report says and many have been saying for months, IPCC leaders forgot to make sure that the embroidery of examples its authors marshalled to make said conclusion compelling and readable was based on solid, peer-reviewed science rather than blah blah blah. They did, in other words, overshoot miserably on Himalaya’s upcoming ice loss, but worldwide glaciers are retreating anyway.
Notably, among the accounts that do not do much to note that the underlying science is fine is the one at Fox news. Reporter Kaplan asserts that the IAC “did not spend its time analyzing the accuracy of climate models and climate science.” He seem to imply it did not address the reliability of those aspects of IPCC’s work at all. A reading of the report’s conclusions, however, makes clear that as a vehicle for forwarding legitimate scientific conclusions to the public and to governments the reviewers feel that IPCC overall has done a good job. That’s the same as saying the conventional view of global warming as a big problem is already shared by this InterAcademy team. And they in turn represent organized science. They do seem to think way too much flim-flam slipped into the reports to the public – a bad move when there are plenty of stout research findings that would have done the job just fine.
In an arena as contentious as this, with so many heels already dug in, it would be difficult to concoct a news account verifying IPCC’s shortcomings and not feed the confirmation bias of readers who think global warming is bogus. One doubts any of these stories alter the landscape of public debate. On that score, one must note the poor judgment by Bloomberg’s reporter van Loon in deciding to give Greenpeace the mike for defending the reality of greenhouse-driven, we-done-it global warming. Really, all these scientists available from academic institutions, and somebody decided Greenpeace is just the bunch for an authoritative, outside opinion?
Grist for the Mill:
IAC Press Release ; IAC full report on processes and procedures of IPCC ;
- Charlie Petit
