Dr Rigmar Osterkamp Friday, 09 April 2010 10:12
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), something like a world climate council, produces the most acknowledged, most comprehensive and most influential reports on global climate change.
Four reports have been published so far, the last one dating 2007 (3000 pages long, available in the Internet). The next report is due in 2012. The reports usually consist of three parts: the scientific causes of climate change, the possible effects and the policy options. The authors of the reports are acknowledged scientists and academics.
Before publishing, the texts are scrutinized by other researchers (the referees) who are not authors. Generally, IPCC applies the rule that only such research results are allowed to enter the reports which have been published before in well reputed and refereed scientific journals.
Recently, however, the IPCC came under fire in a heated international public debate about the validity and credibility of some of IPCC’s statements and about the correct application of established internal procedures. We ask here: What happened? And: Is it justified to doubt about IPCC’s core results?
Three things happened. First, the stolen emails. End of last year, hackers got access to the email server of the climatologists of the University of East Anglia. The East Anglia climatologists are prominent IPCC authors and their international correspondents as well. The hackers stole their internal and international email correspondence over some years and made it publicly available on the Internet. That the tone of conversation in these emails is not very “scientific” but rather sloppy does not come as a surprise. After all, they are old colleagues. But it is of some concern that part of the correspondence is about two questions: how can we keep critics out of IPCC, and: how can we hide recent global temperature decreases (happening during the last 10 years, or so) from the public?
Second, the East Anglia climatologists had (some years ago) refused to give out their original climate data to people whom they believed were critics. The argument of the scientists was: non-climatologists might misunderstand or misinterpret the data. This reminds us of the medieval Catholic church which did not allow people to read the bible themselves – because they could misunderstand it. The case went to the British Ombudsman for informational freedom. He condemned the behavior of the scientists.
Third, the Himalayan glacier question, the most recent event. The 2007 IPCC report contains the forecast that the larger part of the Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 2035. It took some non-IPCC glacier experts two years before they succeeded in convincing IPCC that the 2035 date is not based on any scientific evidence. In January 2010, IPCC finally gave in and publicly confessed the mistake. No new date for the melted glaciers was mentioned. IPCC explained that, contrary to the established rules of procedure, a co- author of the report had used a non-refereed source. Possibly, however, the reason for the failure is much more basic. Some years ago, a Russian climatologist had made the forecast that the Himalayan glaciers will vanish by 2350. Perhaps it was only a typing error – but one which some IPCC authors found plausible.
There are more cases of a dubious treatment of sources, of evidence and of (critical) arguments. But it is only the Himalayan glacier question that received broad public attention.
Equally dubious is, for example, how the latest IPCC report came to the conclusion of a neat relation between temperature increase and catastrophic weather events. The report refers to a specific scientific study. The referee of the chapter mentioned to the authors that this study cannot be taken as a basis for that statement, rather to the contrary. Nevertheless, the statement of a neat relation between temperature increase and catastrophic weather events together with the inappropriate reference appeared in the report. Of course, this is not just an example for a sober scientific procedure. On the other hand: the fact that several cases of that sort became public knowledge, speaks at least in favour of IPCC’s transparency.
How are the mentioned examples to be assessed? It is, of course, not justified to put the core results of a 3000 page report of well-reputed climatologists into doubt, only on the basis of some errors in sources, conclusions and procedures, which some (of the many) authors made. However, what is of concern is that some of the IPCC authors do not seem to be only scientists. They, apparently, also feel to have a mission, to be climate missionaries. They hesitate to publish recent figures about decreasing temperatures; they try to keep diverging views out of IPCC; they want to preserve and not shatter the global public awareness of an ongoing climate change; they want to keep their “message” (a word from the stolen emails) undisturbed and clear, even if it may be biased or at least incomplete.
It may be that material interests also play a role. For example, IPCC’s president, Rajendra Pachauri, had hesitated for quite some time to give in to the glacier question. When he finally did, it was shortly after a large research contract on Himalayan glaciers had been signed in favour of his own climate research institute TERI in India.
Another example: The question of climate- and weather-related catastrophes is, of course, of interest for the large insurance and re-insurance companies. The more people, enterprises and governments believe in a rising trend of catastrophes, the more policies the insurers can sell and the higher their prices can be. (An extra-profit accrues when the increasing catastrophes are only perceived but not real.) And, indeed, the IPCC chapter on catastrophes is partly based on a study done by a globally operating re-insurance company. On the other hand, there are countervailing interests as well. Polluting industries and, specifically, some oil producing countries may likewise intervene and try to influence climatologists, inside or outside the IPCC. It may be that all these influences and interests neutralize themselves. In the end, it is only a transparent public debate that can help us (non-climatologists) to understand and to assess what is going on with the climate. But even then, it remains difficult enough.
Read More at SOURCE: http://www.economist.com.na/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21315:climate-change-has-the-ipcc-lost-some-of-its-credibility&catid=570:columns&Itemid=66
Leave a Reply