intergovernmental panel on climate change

Mon, 2011-02-21 06:37Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Denialists Progress: From Doubt-Mongering to Certainty

rep. blaine luetkemeyer

Over the weekend, the U.S. House of Representatives voted along partisan lines in favor of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri (pictured at left) to cut funding for the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). When I flagged this incredible news on my Discover blog, the clean energy activist Michael Noble tweeted back: “Gone, even that old refrain: ‘needs more study.’” 

The more I think about it, the more profound that little remark becomes.

Time was when I, and many others tracking and critiquing the climate “skeptics,” would linger on their manufacture of uncertainty, their sowing and merchandising of doubt. “Doubt is our product,” as the infamous tobacco memo put it.

Wed, 2010-07-14 21:18Jim Hoggan
Jim Hoggan's picture

IPCC Fumbles Media Relations Strategy, Must Review Basic Principles of Public Relations

Andy Revkin’s revelations over the weekend about the botched media relations strategy deployed by the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, demonstrate that the IPCC has failed to learn from its recent missteps in managing public communications.

If you don’t have anything to hide, don’t act as if you do.

Being thrust into the media spotlight and subjected to sudden intense scrutiny can rattle any organization, and the IPCC is hardly the first institution to be accused of resorting to a “bunker mentality” and evading media inquiries. But, as Revkin points out correctly, sheltering yourself from the press is bound to backfire, creating more skepticism about your activities when you should really focus on explaining your work more clearly and operating with greater transparency.

For an organization like the IPCC - which has been accused of holding information too closely to its chest - to send an open letter advising its lead authors and editors to “keep a distance from the media” demonstrates PR mismanagement at its worst. It reinforces the perception that IPCC leadership doesn’t really know what it is doing.

That’s unfortunate because the IPCC has reportedly been spending a lot of time internally reviewing its operations to increase transparency. But this memo doesn’t help demonstrate that fact, by a long shot.

Tue, 2010-05-25 16:42Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Christopher Monckton: Lies, damn lies or staggering incompetence

John Abraham’s Critique Devastates the Florid Lord’s Denier Diatribe

Christopher Monckton, the self-celebrating Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, toured Canada and the U.S. last year calling the world’s best climate scientists and activists “liars” for setting out their concerns about the dangers of climate change. In his presentations and his PowerPoints, Monckton was graceless and taunting in tone, making fun of Al Gore’s accent along with his science. The record now shows that Monckton was also wrong - and frankly, wrong is such a way that he himself must be found to be either a flagrant and shameless liar or the most incompetent compiler of information since church scholars gathered to argue for the flatness of the earth.

The new critique was assembled by John P. Abraham, an engineering professor at St. Thomas University in St. Paul Minnesota. A diligent - even painstaking - researcher, Abraham is also unreservedly respectful in his own presentation, giving Monckton the benefit of every doubt.

The facts, however, are less accommodating. As Prof. Abraham demonstrates time and again, Monckton has consistently misinterpreted, misrepresented or flat-out lied about his “evidence” arguing against the theory of human-induced global warming. He has mangled references, misrepresented findings, cobbled together unattributed graphs and staked his case to critically compromised scholars.

Sat, 2009-12-12 08:42Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Pachauri: Email theft a "recreational distraction"

The theft and release of the University of East Anglia emails is nothing more than a “recreational distraction” to the Copenhagen climate summit, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri said at a news conference today.

Yet immediately after he said it, another senior IPCC member said he believed that his colleagues have, from the very beginning, underestimated the potential effect of the email story on public understanding of climate science - and public support for action in Copenhagen.

Pachauri (or “Pachy,” as he seems to be known  among his friends) had called a news conference on the “Scientific Basis” for climate change. It wound up being a review of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, a reiteration of news that “the warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

The question (which I posed and which Pachauri did not answer) was whether the UNFCCC or the IPCC would have felt such a conference was necessary had the emails not been used so effectively to call the science into question.

Mon, 2007-11-19 14:28Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Top Quotes from the UN's Global Warming Report

With everyone being so busy all the time, I thought I would give a quick snapshot of the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) final report that was released on Saturday after a week of negotiations by government officials from around the world.

This is the final report of the IPCC and probably the most valuable, as it will be used as a key reference documents at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting that will be held in Bali, Indonesia at the beginning of December. At the meeting in Bali government leaders will begin negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

If you want to read the entire document, here's the link to the PDF version. If you only have 5 minutes or so, here's the key findings pulled directly from the report…

Mon, 2007-11-19 11:51Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

The Final Global Warning: science has spoken and governments have signed on the dotted line

The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its final report this weekend in Valnecia, Spain. It outlines in simple language, the state of planet now, the effects of human activity on the plant and what we can expect in the future.

The findings are stark and disturbing and the governments of the world, including the United States, have signed on the dotted line, agreeing that this is the reality of global warming now and in the future.

With such an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, agreed to by the world's governments, anyone or any organization attempting to delay, deny, confuse or get in the way of large-scale action at this point would be at the least embarrassing themselves with such a grand scale of delusion and ignorance and the most would be bordering on a crime against humanity.

Wed, 2007-07-18 14:05Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Exxon Apologist Attacks Hoggan Campaign to Clean Up PR Industry

When Alan Caruba read the text of James Hoggan's recent speech to the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS), you can almost imagine a little flash of recognition as Caruba concluded: “That Hoggan guy: He's talking about ME!”

As it happens, Mr. Caruba, it's nothing personal: Jim had never heard of you before seeing your snarling response to his CPRS talk. But it's no wonder if you thought you recognized yourself in Jim's condemnation of tawdry public relations practices.

Fri, 2007-05-04 13:07Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

$10 to save the planet

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded today that it would cost .12% of the world's domestic product to substantially reduce our collective greenhouse gas emissions.

GDP of the world economy: US$60 trillion

.12% of $60 trillion: $70 billion

Total population of the earth: 6.5 billion

Cost per person to significantly reduce heat-trapping gas worldwide: $10 a year

Cost of saving the planet from droughts, famine, mass flooding, species extinction and rising sea levels: priceless.

Note: I've revised the calculations here. From $110 to $10 per person.

Here's the math: $60 trillion/.0012/6.5 billion = 10 (rounded figures)

Fri, 2007-03-23 10:34Ross Gelbspan
Ross Gelbspan's picture

IPCC Pulls Its Punches: Scientific American

After some debate, the scientists and diplomats of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued their long-anticipated summary report in February – leaving out a reference to an accelerated warming trend.

By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did.

Thu, 2007-02-01 11:38Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

CEI argues IPCC science without any scientists

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, who not even the likes of ExxonMobil want to be associated with anymore, has issued a media advisory today offering up their in-house staff as global warming “experts” available for comment on the upcoming release by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

With the IPCC report coming from scientists, you would think the CEI would be offering up scientists as global warming “experts.

Think again.

Here's some background information on each of their so-called “experts.”

Pages

Subscribe to intergovernmental panel on climate change