The IPCC showed the world the reality and the danger of climate change, but has been the subject of a cloud of public relations in recent years. Photography: First/zefa/CorbisThe world really awakened to the threat of climate change on Friday 2 February of 2007 when a report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change concluded that the activities of mankind are - beyond all reasonable doubt - dangerous driving global warming. Remains the seminal moment and the IPCC's work was recognized with the Nobel Prize in peace, shared with Al Gore.
How things change. Since large part of the recent reports of the IPCC's work, it would be forgiven for thinking that it is a group of tinpot green fans, rather than the greatest feat of global scientific cooperation never seen. Their reports are approved and backups of all the Nations of the planet, which is absolutely unique and authoritative.
It was the most recent "dispute" on the special report of the IPCC on renewable energy. "Its release was kidnapped by Greenpeace, with the report buried until weeks later," cried critics. Here is it not, for any reason, to tell.
1. The summary for policymakers (SPM) was released before the full report for the same reason that gives the IPCC single influence. The SPM was discussed and approved, then all 194 countries, meaning that some changes are made to the project. Those changes must then be woven into the full report, 1000 pages in this case. It takes time, but the SPM is already widely available. Delete the SPM until made revisions to the full report is simply impossible.
2. The scientist working for Greenpeace, Sven Teske, was one of nine authors for the corresponding chapter, one of whom worked for an oil company. The ultimate responsibility for the chapter, one of 11 in the report, was with two authors of coordination. General, 120 scientists the author of the report, there were 269 contributors and reviewers of 340 or something as well.
3. The research suggesting that they could generate 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2050 was a report by Greenpeace. But much more saliently, also was peer reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal. It was the last, not first, which was part of the IPCC report.
4 Press room for the special report on renewable energy sources makes it clear that examined more than 160 scientific scenarios for the expansion of green energy, with four sources examined in depth. The most optimistic suggests the use of 77 per cent in 2050, less optimistic, quoted in the following paragraph - suggest that only 15%.
Has the IPCC made mistakes in its communication? Without a doubt. The response to the revelation that a 3,000-page report there was an erroneous assertion that could melt the glaciers of the Himalayas to 2035 was extremely clumsy and counterproductive. The lessons have been learned and to try to prevent future repetitions, although no system will be infallible in a gigantic effort by.
Crucial work of the IPCC does over the journalistic scrutiny or criticism? Absolutely not. Journalists should work without fear or favour, and I have done the same in relation to the information in the cables U.S. diplomats obtained by Wikileaks on how some IPCC personalities were appointed.
Some critics went as far as to suggest that non-governmental organization scientists have place as authors of IPCC reports. You might think that nature, the world's most prestigious journals of Science Editors, would agree. But it is not the case. In fact are quite the opposite view. An editorial in the August issue of States of nature climate change (free registration):
Expand the circle of knowledge and information that contribute to the IPCC is essential for the evolution of the Organization, and welcomes in this regard the report [renewable energy]. Some of the major revelations on how we deal with climate change could come from this diversity, be in the form of industry authors or links of promotion, sources of information outside of magazines or meta-analysis
It is true that a perception of bias can be harmful, even if it is unfounded. But that perception comes from partial, censoring of proper context and omission of key facts reports.
The IPCC scandal is entirely different. For a body of such unique global significance, its secretariat is shockingly tiny – only 12 staff. Not long ago it was half of that number. Its annual budget is just a few million dollars, with only a single communication professional. It is a miracle that nothing out.
How can this be? Ironically, once more gives for the same reason that the IPCC his sole authority. If you plan to get 194 Nations to agree on global warming, try to get 194 Nations to agree to increase its subscription fees.
The IPCC certainly needs to communicate better and that the resources to do so. That, in my opinion, is something worth shouting about.
Note: in item 2 above in the original post that was not used exact terminology of the IPCC for the role of different copyright, i.e., the lead and the main Coordinator. Now be corrected. Thanks to Richard Klein.
没有评论:
发表评论