Integrity of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Representatives of 194 participating governments make up the panel, which sets the scope of the assessments and elects the bureau that oversees the detailed preparation of the reports. These reports are prepared by thousands of scientists who are selected, on the basis of their personal research records, for three working groups……..
Given that the climate panel’s reports are reviewed by thousands of scientists and hundreds of government representatives, we need hard facts before we can demonstrate lack of integrity.
Don’t shoot the climate change messenger, The Age, January 9, 2014 Mary Voice A long investigation into the effects of greenhouse gases has strived to be objective, responsible, cautious and realistic. Opinions are just that. Opinions. They are not evidence or worthy of our consideration unless backed up by evidence and data. There are many opinions, floating around the blogosphere and newspaper opinion pieces, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lacks integrity and accountability. If this was true to any significant degree, it would be very serious for public policy.
At the same time, it is of paramount importance not to shoot the messenger should that messenger be trying to let you know of something really important.
The climate change panel is a messenger of unwelcome news and, given our human natures, is a classic shooting target…….
First, my opinion. It is my view that there has been a quest for integrity and accountability in climate science since the panel was established,…….
The panel’s mandate was to provide an authoritative assessment of the state of knowledge of the scientific basis for, potential impacts of and responses to, human-induced climate change. It would be an intergovernmental body, on which all 190-plus member countries of the UN could be represented, to ensure – and assure member countries – that the assessment of the latest knowledge would be based on the widest possible range of views in the published scientific literature. Thus we can see the elements of accountability built into the panel’s early design…….
The panel is more than a collection of climate scientists, since member governments formally supervise the assessment to help ensure its scientific integrity and freedom from sectional agendas. I am unaware of any groundswell of concern that the panel denies information to government representatives or lacks accountability to them in any other way.
Representatives of 194 participating governments make up the panel, which sets the scope of the assessments and elects the bureau that oversees the detailed preparation of the reports. These reports are prepared by thousands of scientists who are selected, on the basis of their personal research records, for three working groups……..
Given that the climate panel’s reports are reviewed by thousands of scientists and hundreds of government representatives, we need hard facts before we can demonstrate lack of integrity. There have been mistakes in the panel’s reports, but I am unaware of anyone having proven that they were due to a lack of integrity. Even though the InterAcademy Council review of the panel’s processes looked at this and made recommendations to tighten procedures, it made no accusations of lack of integrity.
The community and the polity should call for ongoing transparency from the panel, and demand of it a stringent, continuous search for integrity and accountability. Those concerned with these matters should make specific suggestions for improvement. I urge governments, which rely heavily on the integrity of the panel’s reports, to strengthen and refine global assessment. But don’t shoot the messenger.
Mary Voice is a climatologist and lecturer and was formerly head of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology.
No comments yet.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 
Leave a comment