Let’s Read the IPCC (2)

“Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis : Foreword” :-

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/frontmattersforeword.html

“The report confirms that our scientific understanding of the climate system and its sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions is now richer and deeper than ever before.”

Who is meant by the ownership word “our” ?

It cannot mean the whole of humanity, since there are still a large number of people who have no idea about the Science of Climate Change, or who deny it.

I suspect that most Climate Change deniers would stop reading this report right there – as they don’t want to be included in the group of people who accept that Climate Change is real, happening and serious, too.

Notice that there’s no question that the Climate is sensitive to Greenhouse Gas Emissions accumulating in the Atmosphere. There’s no “likelihood” associated with that statement.

“The rigor and credibility of this report owes much to the unique nature of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988, the IPCC is both an intergovernmental body and a network of the world’s leading climate change scientists and experts.”

In order to accept this report, you need to accept that governments have legitimate authority in handling matters of science. At this point, a large group of people who are against any form of organised social management would stop reading. People who are “libertarian” or “self-autonomous” may try to blend in with what’s going on around them, but they don’t actually agree with governance of any kind. The basics of any human community are that not every person can fulfil every role, and group projects need to be facilitated – specialisation is necessary, and so is management. For example, unless we want to return to the days of rampant typhoid and cholera in the industrialised countries, somebody has to be responsible for treating sewage, even the sewage of free-thinking, free-speaking, free-marketeers.

If you are to carry on reading, you also have to accept that the knowledge, experience, research and the expertise of the scientists is what form the content of the report, and not some politically-motivated ideological chimera.

“The Summary for Policymakers was approved by officials from 113 governments and represents their understanding – and their ownership – of the entire underlying report. It is this combination of expert and government review that constitutes the strength of the IPCC. The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant – as opposed to policy-prescriptive – assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Its earlier assessment reports helped to inspire governments to adopt and implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. The current report will also be highly relevant as Governments consider their options for moving forward together to address the challenge of climate change…Many Governments have supported the participation of their resident scientists in the IPCC process…”

If you’re still reading, then you will know by now that there is an unstoppable, undeniable wave of acceptance of the IPCC science by the world’s official authorities.

Where that leaves the Media and Press people, I don’t know. They have shown signs of denial for years, and that’s not likely to cease just because the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists agree that Climate Change is a real problem.

Where’s the “you can’t believe everything you read in the papers” attitude that used to inform everyone ?

Scientists say Climate Change is real, it’s serious and it’s happening now.

Newspapers say “Things may or may not be problematic”. And this from information organisations who make their living out of sensationalising and scandalising every issue known to humankind (including the non-scandal of Climategate).

Who are you going to believe ?

“The chapters forming the bulk of this report describe scientists’ assessment of the state-of-knowledge in their respective fields. They were written by 152 coordinating lead authors and lead authors from over 30 countries and reviewed by over 600 experts. A large number of government reviewers also contributed review comments…The Physical Science Basis was made possible by the commitment and voluntary labor of the world’s leading climate scientists. We would like to express our gratitude to all the Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, Contributing Authors, Review Editors and Reviewers. We would also like to thank the staff of the Working Group I Technical Support Unit and the IPCC Secretariat for their dedication in coordinating the production of another successful IPCC report.”

That’s a large number of people to ask to work together perfectly well, hence the likelihood for some small slip-ups, that have been identified and admitted :-

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

“IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers, Geneva, 20 January 2010”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.