| Revision as of 20:38, 10 August 2003 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,038 edits replace inaccurate paraphrase of policymakrs summary with what they actually said.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:53, 10 August 2003 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,038 edits Restore my take on SEPP; remove link to 1992 report (we're on 1995!); restore start to "debate" section.; etcNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| ==== Debate over Climate Change 1995 ==== | ==== Debate over Climate Change 1995 ==== | ||
| Note that this section should really be replaced by "debate over the TAR" and is only of historical interest... | |||
| The debate includes how many scientists involved in climate research have accepted that the IPCC | |||
| reports accurately summarise the state of knowledge. Reports have various amounts of detail, from simple percentages to lists of all participants. | |||
| Most scientists involved in climate research have accepted that the IPCC reports accurately summarise the state of knowledge and have felt no need to comment publicly. Those few who have objected, however, have made a considerable amount of noise. | |||
| * A 1992 Gallup poll that 17% of members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think recent global warming was due to greenhouse gas emissions, principally ]. | |||
| * Challenges whether only the opinion of climate experts are relevant, and relevance of the opinions of Nobel laureates and the other signatories of declarations. | |||
| Some external discussion of the degree of consensus over "global warming" science can be found at: | |||
| ** 15,000 . | |||
| * (asserts no consensus). | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| * 15,000 (not strictly relevant to IPCC, but is supportive of the Kyoto treaty). | |||
| ⚫ | * The skeptical (but how many signers are really climate-related scientist?). | ||
| * 17,000 signatories of the (Self description: ''This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails'') who believe there are flawed ideas in the 1997 ]. | |||
| Politicians such as ] and ] (author of ]) have endorsed the report, saying that "the science is settled". The report formed the basis of negotiations over the ]. | Politicians such as ] and ] (author of ]) have endorsed the report, saying that "the science is settled". The report formed the basis of negotiations over the ]. | ||
| Line 58: | Line 60: | ||
| A ], ], Reuters report quoted British scientist ], one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the Policymakers' Summary. He said: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." | A ], ], Reuters report quoted British scientist ], one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the Policymakers' Summary. He said: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." | ||
| "The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors and reviewers; we found that about half did not support the Policymakers' Summary." . The ], |
"The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors and reviewers; we found that about half did not support the Policymakers' Summary." . The ], however, is not an impartial organisation and without details as to the exact nature of the survey this statement should be viewed with caution. For example, a 1992 survey by Greenpeace International is sometimes cited in support of this position; however the Greenpeace survey was about a runaway greenhouse effect and is not relevant here. SEPP has a summary of their issues with the IPPC at their page - however, they have failed to notice that the TAR came out in 2001. | ||
| == External Links == | == External Links == | ||
Revision as of 20:53, 10 August 2003
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its aims are threefold:
- assess scientific information on climate change
- assess the impacts of climate change
- formulate response strategies
It is led by government scientists, but also involves several hundred academic scientists and researchers. The IPCC synthesises the available information about climate change and global warming and has published four major reports reviewing the latest climate science.
The current head of IPCC is Rajendra K. Pachauri; previously Robert Watson headed the IPCC until being voted out in May 2002.
The IPCC organisation is shown here.
Publications
The most recent IPCC report is Climate Change 2001, the third assessment report (TAR).
The IPCC first assessment report was completed in 1990, and served as the basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Climate Change 1995
Climate Change 1995 was finished in 1996, and is the second assessment of the IPCC. It is split into four parts:
- A synthesis to help interpret UNFCCC article 2.
- The Science of Climate Change
- Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change
- Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change.
Each of the last three parts was completed by a separate working party, and each has a Policymakers' Summary that represents a consensus of national representatives. Read the Full Report (pdf) or just the Summary for Policymakers.
The policymakers' summary of the report on the science of climate change begins with the following contents list:
- Greenhouse gas concentrations have continued to increase
- Anthropogenic aerosols tend to produce negative radiative forcings
- Climate has changed over the past century
- The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate
- Climate is expected to continue to change in the future
- There are still many uncertainties
and then states: Considerable progress has been made in the understanding of climate change1 science since 1990 and new data and analyses have become available.
Debate over Climate Change 1995
Note that this section should really be replaced by "debate over the TAR" and is only of historical interest...
Most scientists involved in climate research have accepted that the IPCC reports accurately summarise the state of knowledge and have felt no need to comment publicly. Those few who have objected, however, have made a considerable amount of noise.
Some external discussion of the degree of consensus over "global warming" science can be found at:
- The Myth of Scientific Consensus on Global Warming (asserts no consensus).
- 15,000 World Scientists' Call for Action (1997) (not strictly relevant to IPCC, but is supportive of the Kyoto treaty).
- The skeptical 1997 Leipzig Declaration On Global Climate Change (but how many signers are really climate-related scientist?).
- 17,000 signatories of the Oregon Petition Project (Self description: This is the website that completely knocks the wind out of the enviro's sails) who believe there are flawed ideas in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
Politicians such as Bill Clinton and Al Gore (author of Earth in the Balance) have endorsed the report, saying that "the science is settled". The report formed the basis of negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol.
Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and past president of the National Academy of Sciences, has publicly denounced the IPCC report, writing "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
A December 20, 1995, Reuters report quoted British scientist Keith Shine, one of IPCC's lead authors, discussing the Policymakers' Summary. He said: "We produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have the final say in what goes into a scientists' report."
"The Science and Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific contributors and reviewers; we found that about half did not support the Policymakers' Summary." . The SEPP, however, is not an impartial organisation and without details as to the exact nature of the survey this statement should be viewed with caution. For example, a 1992 survey by Greenpeace International is sometimes cited in support of this position; however the Greenpeace survey was about a runaway greenhouse effect and is not relevant here. SEPP has a summary of their issues with the IPPC at their page The IPCC Controversy - however, they have failed to notice that the TAR came out in 2001.