Climate controversies

Flawed scientists - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change needs reform. The case for climate action does not

Jul 8th 2010

EIGHT months after a trove of e-mails from climate researchers appeared on the internet, yet another inquiry into “climategate” reported its findings on July 7th. Two days earlier the Dutch environmental-assessment agency announced the results of a report it had been asked to produce on possible errors in the most recent review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Neither report does anything to weaken the case for acting to limit carbon emissions.

Greenhouse gases still warm planets, carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas and the amount of it in the Earth’s atmosphere is still shooting up. The temperature rose over the 20th century in a way that follows from these basic truths. Other mechanisms at play in the climate complicate the issue, but none of them offers a remotely satisfactory alternative explanation for the temperature rise. It is impossible to say with certainty how bad the 21st century’s heating will be, but there is a large chance of it getting hot enough to do harm, and a far from trivial chance of things turning catastrophic. This makes moving away from fossil fuels a global priority.

Yet the science of climate change has seemed to be derailed by climategate and the discovery of some errors in IPCC reports, even the gravest of which come far short of undermining its conclusions. Part of the explanation is no doubt a noxious campaign against the credibility of environmental science in general, and climate science in particular; the internet has allowed the doubt thus manufactured to go viral. But the problem also stems from the failings of climate scientists themselves, and the institutions they work in.

The controversies in climate science: Science behind closed doors
Jul 8th 2010. They have too often mistaken real doubts for scurrilous attacks, and relied on mutual reinforcement rather than open debate, on authority rather than argument. The IPCC, chaired by Rajendra Pachauri, should by its procedures and example do much to help with this. Unfortunately, it has allowed itself to become part of the problem. That the panel’s mistakes and questionable judgments almost all make the picture more gloomy, not less, reinforces a widespread worry that some of the authors are policy advocates as well as scholars (see article). Being linked to Al Gore through a Nobel peace prize has not helped.

Though transparent in some ways, the IPCC is woefully opaque in others. Depending as it does on expert judgment, the bona fides of its authors—the next batch, all 831 of them, was named in June—is crucially important. Yet their selection from national lists of nominees goes on entirely behind closed doors. This has led to a perception that points of view that do not hew to some sort of party line are being excluded.

A post-Pachauri panel

A better set-up could help. At present, the IPCC lacks a full-time chair (Dr Pachauri continues to run a large energy-research institute in India). It does not have the resources needed to support its volunteer authors. It lacks clear standards for judging conflicts of interest and an independent ombudsman.

The governments which run the IPCC will meet in South Korea in October. They should use the opportunity to begin a full reappraisal of what they and their citizens want from the panel in terms of timeliness, transparency and trust, and how to get it; if this means pausing the current assessment round, then so be it. They should give the panel new staff, resources and rules. And they should look at a range of candidates for a new position as the full-time chair. Dr Pachauri has been a staunch defender of the panel as it is rather than an advocate for reform that would improve it. He is not the man to carry out the changes it badly needs