IPCC
-
A visual comparison
When the IPCC WGII summary was released last week, there were media reports on last-minute clashes between scientists and political types — the former pushing for the original strong language, the latter pushing to water it down. George Monbiot’s column yesterday addressed the subject, in characteristically outraged tones. For those interested in the details, DeSmogBlog […]
-
-
Summarizin’
The summary for policymakers (PDF) of the report by the IPCC Second Working Group is out!
A summary of the summary:
-
Somehow, I don’t feel that bad for you
The latest impact of climate change: eco-anxiety. Symptoms: Generalized discomfort and stress related to the future of the world and possibly your personal role in said future. Ways to fight it: Blame “the media.” Blame the IPCC. Spend lots of money on an “eco-therapist.” Carry around minerals. Buy greener stuff to make yourself feel better. […]
-
The innerworkings of it all
Those opposed to action on climate change are compelled to attack the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its reports. Not doing so would cede the scientific high-ground of the argument and essentially doom their preferred do-nothing policy approach.
One way to attack the IPCC is to describe it as a nameless bureaucracy pursuing its own political agenda, and entirely disconnected from the scientific community. For example, a report from the Fraser Institute makes this argument explicitly:
[A] compelling problem is that the Summary for Policymakers, attached to the IPCC Report, is produced, not by the scientific writers and reviewers, but by a process of negotiation among unnamed bureaucratic delegates from sponsoring governments. Their selection of material need not and may not reflect the priorities and intentions of the scientific community itself.
This argument is transparently false on several counts. First, the authors are not nameless, but are listed prominently on the first page of the Summary. In addition, they are not bureaucrats, but all have scientific credentials in the arena of climate change.
-
As expected, the news is mostly bad, and then worse, and then worse still
Climate change is already having big impacts on the natural world and notable effects on human societies, according to the latest climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, being released on Friday. In short, climate change isn’t in the future; it’s in the right now. The previous installment from the IPCC, released in […]
-
More on fourth IPCC report
Bring your tissue to this one. On Friday, the IPCC publicizes its "emotional heart," the Second Working Group's contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report, covering impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
Preliminary drafts have been leaked. Why is it shaping up to be such a tear-jerker? According to Andrew Weaver, a lead author of Working Group I and climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, this one illustrates "a highway to extinction, but on this highway there are many turnoffs. This is showing you where the road is heading. The road is heading toward extinction."
-
A case can be made
Is the fourth assessment report from the IPCC a conservative document? David Biello makes the case.
-
Just as misleading as the old round
Because of the enormous credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports, and because they suggest that human-induced climate change is a very real risk, opponents of action on climate change must attack the IPCC or completely cede the scientific high ground in the debate.
With the release of the latest IPCC report, a whole new crop of specious skeptical arguments has arisen. Here's a good example, which appeared in this week's Weekly Standard:
One possible reason for the timing is that there appear to be some significant retreats from the 2001 IPCC report. The IPCC has actually lowered its estimate of the magnitude of human influence on warming, though we shall have to wait for the full report in May to understand how and why. Only readers with detailed knowledge of the 2001 report would notice these changes, which is why most news accounts failed to report them.
As with most skeptical arguments, there is a grain of truth here, sitting under a mountain of deception.
