Main Page | About Us | Site Map | Contact Us |©2016 ClimateCooling

The IPCC Process is Good, but..... 

I worked with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988 to 2000 on five impact analyses: Fisheries (Convening Lead Author), Polar Regions (Co-Chair), Oceans (Lead Author), and Oceans and Coastal Zones (Co-Chair/2 reports).

I support the IPCC process. It is a reasonable way to coordinate the development of policy advice on global issues. I believe the technical chair persons are able to exert enough authority to keep the reports from becoming merely political statements. However, there does appear to be "cherry picking" of science and results to advance some policy agendas or anthropogenic greenhouse warming.

I would like to see better treatment of alternative views and greater numbers of dissenting scientists participating. This latest report on the Science of Climate Change covered the key aspects of concern to those not part of the IPCC consensus, but did not involve them sufficiently, if at all, in developing the material and the result seems to be an official dismissal of the literature rather than a thorough development as is common for ideas necessary for the consensus view to be valid. IPCC should not state that the findings are supported by the thousands of scientists who participated without querying them. Many provided input on things germane to their work, such as the impact of sea level rise on a marsh. They have no idea if the sea level rise projection they were asked to address makes sense or not. People who reviewed the report and who disagreed through their comments or provided materials are included in the list of experts or authors, even if their materials were rejected. They should not all be considered part of the "consensus".


The IPCC 2007 Climate Forecast for this Century:

The IPCC Projections do not Comport with Reality

The IPCC Impacts are Overstated Relative to Benefits

Main Page | About Us | Site Map | Contact Us |©2016 ClimateCooling

This page updated or reviewed in April 2010