Environment

UN chief establishes climate panel review

By The World ⋅ March 11, 2010 ⋅ Post a comment
Play
Download

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download MP3
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appointed an independent panel to review the operations of the IPCC, the UN’s climate science panel. The organization won the Nobel Peace Prize for its work, but critics have identified a number of small errors in its reports. The World’s Katy Clark reports.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

DAVID BARON: I’m David Baron, and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. The secretary general of the United Nations has begun a review of the way the UN’s climate science panel works. The inter-governmental panel on climate, or IPCC is a collaboration of thousands of scientists from around the globe. It won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its work. But recently some people have been questioning its credibility. The World’s Katy Clark has more.

KATY CLARK: The IPCC’s massive 2007 report has been hammered by critics in recent months. They’ve seized on a number of small errors to challenge the credibility of the entire agency. In announcing the review yesterday, UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon made it clear he believes that the science behind climate change remains solid.

BAN KI-MOON: The threat posed by climate change is real. Nothing that has been alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change. Nor does it diminish the unique importance of the IPCC work.

KATY CLARK: But the secretary general acknowledged a few errors that had undermined public confidence in the IPCC. For instance, the agency failed to pick up a mistake in its estimate of how quickly the Himalayan glaciers are melting. So Ban Ki-Moon is turning to an independent panel to evaluate the IPCCS’s operations in hopes of avoiding such mistakes in the future. IPCC chairman R.K. Pachauri says he welcomes the review.

R.K. PACHAURI: In recent months, we have seen some criticism. We are receptive and sensitive to that, and we are doing something about it.

KATY CLARK: The review will be led by the head of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Robbert Dijkgraaf.

ROBBER DIJKGRAAF: What we have been asked to look at is the general way in which the IPCC works. So it’s processes and procedures, and management structure, the way it deals with peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature. How it communicates. So, it’s actually a very broad task. And we also have been asked to see how the approaches towards errors, how they can be avoided. All in all it will be future looking review.

KATY CLARK: That all sounds good to Roger Pielke Junior.

ROGER PIELKE JUNIOR: I guess I’m in the unique position of being one of researchers who publishes in the peer-reviewed literature who has seen his work misrepresented by the IPCC.

KATY CLARK: Pielke is a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He says the IPCC’s last report came to erroneous conclusions on the links between rising temperatures and the costs of natural disasters. Pielke doesn’t want to speculate why the IPCC didn’t correct its mistake.

ROGER PIELKE JUNIOR: The reasons for the breakdowns in process don’t matter so much as that they’re recognized and changes are made to the policies and procedures of the institution, so they don’t happen again. It’s inevitable that there will be mistakes in a report as massive and as ambitious as the IPCC, but if the institution’s incapable of responding in an effective manner, then institution has some credibility problems.

KATY CLARK: Pielke says he’s cautiously optimistic that the review will address those problems. Oceanographer Katherine Richardson is a climate advisor to the Danish government. She’s also happy that a third party will be reviewing the IPCC’s work. But she harbors no illusions that the review will satisfy people who believe climate change isn’t real.

KATHERINE RICHARDSON: There’s still people saying same thing about evolution. So it would be naïve to believe that this discussion is going to go away simply because we do look at the way IPCC works.

KATY CLARK: The review panel will try to finish its work by August. That would give the IPCC time to implement any recommendations before it begins work on its next report. For The World, this is Katy Clark.


Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Discussion

2 comments for “UN chief establishes climate panel review”

  • Frederika Haskell

    Yesterday (3/11), I turned on the radio in the middle of an interview on this topic.

    The subject of the interview made reference to scientists and others who “deny climate change.”

    I’d like to see your program and the media in general, make the correct statement about what is actually the cause of the skepticism. In the scientific community, it is not skepticism about the fact that Earth’s climate is changing.

    After having heard only public radio reporting on this topic over a long period of time, I became closely acquainted with someone who has earned my trust and respect, and who has an entirely different perspective on this topic. This individual would be called a “skeptic” by many – and would be vilified by many (itself a sad commentary on our current society).

    What I have learned through paying attention to the “other side” of this topic is that there is not a question about whether there is climate change. It’s clear that the climate is changing. The evidence is that the climate has always changed on this planet, sometimes incurring extreme effects.

    The skepticism is about the causes of the current changing climate. There is disagreement about “greenhouse gases” and potential deleterious effects on earth’s ecosystems. There is also skepticism about the science that has been used to model – to predict – the outcomes of a system comprised of an extremely complex set of factors.

    (I often wonder: “Hasn’t anyone noticed that predicting the weather from week to week is difficult? How in the world can anyone predict the climate extending decades out?”)

    There appears to be ample evidence to indicate that the data used for these models has been at best, manipulated.

    I hope that PRI and other media outlets will clarify this distinction to the listening public.

    I more fervently hope the independent investigation of the IPCC is taken seriously. Naturally there is a lot of fear about the outcomes, because people’s entire careers are at stake. That is troublesome. But there is a chance now that highly qualified scientists who disagree with other highly qualified scientists on this topic will be heard, and reported on, in our media across the political spectrum.

    We cannot legislate ourselves into a perfect world. But we can work to change our individual responses and open our minds to other perspectives, thereby promoting outcomes that are in the interest of a far greater number of people.

    Perhaps more balanced reporting can reduce some of the hysteria that exists on this topic, and a more rational approach to policy and legislation can be taken.

    This, from someone who was 14 at the first Earth Day, and who has been a “greenie” for most of my life. I continue to do my part. However, I refuse to be alarmed by what I see as a constantly changing environment which all living things have adapted to over the millennia.

    Thank you very much for your attention and consideration.

    ps: if this comment is aired, I would prefer that my full name not be used, as it is so unusual and I don’t want to draw attention to myself.

  • http://www.ascoss.com automation

    Climate change is a global problem, and yet each one of us has the power to make a difference. Even small changes in our daily behaviour can help prevent greenhouse gas emissions without affecting our quality of life. In fact, they can help save us money!