Time for change at discredited IPCC
Share
London – This week sees continuing revelations about how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been less than thorough in checking the scientific basis for its dire warnings about the earth’s climate, or honest in how it reports such findings.
Among the scandals, for example, is one concerning a recent IPCC warning that the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountain range would disappear by 2035, even though it had been told by leading experts that such forecasts were absurd.
The Panel has, not surprisingly, countered these claims, which if left unchecked would undermine the credibility that enables it to pull the strings at the world’s top political tables. The core scientific argument, it insists, remains in tact and – as UK climate secretary Ed Miliband has written in The Observer newspaper – anyone questioning this should effectively get lost.
However, the problem here is not so much to do with the IPCC’s scientific efforts, but rather the way it and other climate change bodies are selectively (mis)using scientific information to confirm their apocalyptic warnings. These forecasts are then used by political leaders, such as Mr Miliband, as the basis for costly global economic, business, environmental and, increasingly, social policies.
To borrow some terminology from the financial community – another all-powerful but somewhat discredited sector – the climate change lobby has dangerously over-leveraged its position and far too much political and financial capital is being invested in its one-eyed approach to global environmental issues.
The time has come to curb the power of the climate bandwagon by providing seats at the IPCC for more respected scientists and engineers – including leading figures in the process engineering industries – that can offer fresh perspectives on how to minimise the impact of human and industrial activity on the environment and ensure the most efficient use of the earth’s resources.
Readers' comments (5)
James Baron | 2 Feb 2010 12:27 pm
I disagree. The major problem is how some people wilfully use a few flawed, and often mis-interpreted, results to try to undermine the environmental argument. The fundamental argument stands and is supported by overwhelming, unflawed and peer-reviewed data.
Having different people at the IPCC will not necessarily prevent mistakes slipping through.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Bridgeman | 2 Feb 2010 12:46 pm
Well finally the truth and some sense. You can never have an open and honest debate with the likes of Ed Milliband writing 'anyone questioning this should effectively get lost'. But this is what the public faces everyday. Its not a case of 'This could be the cause/effect lets look into this' its a case of 'My god the world will explode in 2 yrs time if we dont put a higher tax on cars/industry/fuel etc'
That kind of one sided argument belongs in an Orwellian 1984 - not in 2010 Great Britain. Sure the world is polluted by us, sure we should try to keep things clean and pollutant free, but untill this government and the rest of the world leaders tell the truth over this matter and their 'scientific' findings, lets leave the taxation and scaremongering where it belongs - 1984
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eur Ing T D Atterbury | 2 Feb 2010 1:56 pm
The whole of the climate change issue seems to me to be based on the old concept of "treating the symptons instead of the disease".
When will we begin to address the real problem, ie. that of the population explosion? Accept that the greater is the world population, the greater will be the CO2 levels.
Irrespective of how we continue down the current road of trying to reduce global warming, our planet will not be able to support the increase in world population.
I know that this will not be a popular concept, but that does not detract from its accuracy.
The whole world seems to be on a path that is unlikely to succeed.
Please can we grasp the nettle and find a way, no matter how unpopular, to address the disease not the symptons.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Eur Ing Dr Leigh Gubb | 2 Feb 2010 2:46 pm
The IPCC is a Political Body and as such selects what it wants from the available scientific data to back up its own agenda caring nothing about the overall truth of the situation. We have a bunch of amateurs (Ed Miliband and co) making impossible decisions on serious scientific and engineering matters without having the expertise to do so. How good are the Government advisers? Who are they? Do they have credibility? Do they tell the truth or do they have vested interests? I also agree with T D Atterbury that the increasing world population is a very serious problem that has not yet appeared on the World Agenda. No governement of any country seems to be taking this phenomenon seriously.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ted | 3 Feb 2010 8:18 pm
There are bound to be the odd mistake in any large publishing effort. It is not surprising the lobbyists are making the most of them. Remember Dr Kelly? He was right all along too, but how the government howled against him at the time. The fundamental argument 'Any subsystem of a finite system cannot of itself grown indefinately' stands. So stop blaming the messenger and hear the message. And yes, I am an old engineer not a young idealist.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment