Dec 12, 2024 06:57 PM
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/to-...o-advocate
EXCERPTS: This week in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia more than 230 people are meeting to scope out the next assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, an organization under the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program, is important — I often say that if it did not exist it would need to be invented.
Scientific assessments help policy makers and the public to better understand what is known, what is unknown, and degrees of agreement or disagreement among experts on various knowledge claims relevant to decision making. Scientific assessments are not once-and-for-all arbiters of truth, but a snapshot in time of what relevant experts think. Over time, knowledge in any assessment is subject to updating, revision, and, sometimes, even overturning.
As the IPCC maps out its next assessment report — its seventh — it stands at a critical juncture. The organization’s legitimacy rests in its longstanding mandate to call things straight. However, the IPCC appears to be increasingly moving more towards overt climate advocacy, putting at risk public and policy maker confidence in its work.
[...] Rather than championing specific technologies, a neutral IPCC would instead share with decision makers comprehensive perspectives on energy technology alternatives — including wind and solar, but also, nuclear, geothermal, natural gas, carbon capture, and so on. As THB readers know well, there is a healthy disagreement among relevant experts on technological opportunities for accelerated decarbonization.
[...] We can also see the IPCC is increasingly moving in the direction of climate advocacy in its public relations. Consider its press release announcing this week’s scoping meeting...
[...] This paragraph reads like boilerplate from any garden-variety climate advocacy group, and not what one would expect from a leading international scientific assessment. In fact, this paragraph arguably misrepresents what the IPCC AR6 actually concluded on extreme weather, danger, and the impacts of fractional warming. Few experts actually believe that the 1.5°C target is even achievable.
Imagine if a federal statistical agency promoted the president’s policies with every unemployment report or weather forecast. There is a division of responsibility between those who assess and those who use assessments to promote their favored political means and ends. When we confuse these roles we risk the actual or perceived integrity of assessment.
What would a “neutral” IPCC look like? (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS: This week in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia more than 230 people are meeting to scope out the next assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, an organization under the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program, is important — I often say that if it did not exist it would need to be invented.
Scientific assessments help policy makers and the public to better understand what is known, what is unknown, and degrees of agreement or disagreement among experts on various knowledge claims relevant to decision making. Scientific assessments are not once-and-for-all arbiters of truth, but a snapshot in time of what relevant experts think. Over time, knowledge in any assessment is subject to updating, revision, and, sometimes, even overturning.
As the IPCC maps out its next assessment report — its seventh — it stands at a critical juncture. The organization’s legitimacy rests in its longstanding mandate to call things straight. However, the IPCC appears to be increasingly moving more towards overt climate advocacy, putting at risk public and policy maker confidence in its work.
[...] Rather than championing specific technologies, a neutral IPCC would instead share with decision makers comprehensive perspectives on energy technology alternatives — including wind and solar, but also, nuclear, geothermal, natural gas, carbon capture, and so on. As THB readers know well, there is a healthy disagreement among relevant experts on technological opportunities for accelerated decarbonization.
[...] We can also see the IPCC is increasingly moving in the direction of climate advocacy in its public relations. Consider its press release announcing this week’s scoping meeting...
[...] This paragraph reads like boilerplate from any garden-variety climate advocacy group, and not what one would expect from a leading international scientific assessment. In fact, this paragraph arguably misrepresents what the IPCC AR6 actually concluded on extreme weather, danger, and the impacts of fractional warming. Few experts actually believe that the 1.5°C target is even achievable.
Imagine if a federal statistical agency promoted the president’s policies with every unemployment report or weather forecast. There is a division of responsibility between those who assess and those who use assessments to promote their favored political means and ends. When we confuse these roles we risk the actual or perceived integrity of assessment.
What would a “neutral” IPCC look like? (MORE - missing details)