The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the world authority on the science of climate. But at the same time, it has been increasingly beset by controversies that call into question its approach, and its preparedness, when it comes to communication.

Essentially, the IPCC releases highly technical reports, fairly infrequently, that get an initial flurry of mainstream media attention and then get attacked viciously until the next report comes out. And when attacked, IPCC has opted for an ill advised strategy of “hunkering down,” as Andrew Revkin puts it. Indeed, following “GlacierGate”—when a very real error was found in one of IPCC’s reports—IPCC came off as defensive and was very slow to admit the mistake.

Following the various “-Gates” of 2009 and 2010, a cry went out in many circles that we need to improve climate science communication. As a result, all kinds of communication innovations are now going forward, many of which are ably summarized by Revkin in a recent article in the Bulletin of the World Meteorological Organization (which was central to creating the IPCC itself in 1988).

But where does IPCC fit in the context of this innovation wave? It still seems to be dragging.

There’s no doubt about it. It’s been a challenging year for climate science and climate scientists, for journalists, and for the public. A string of legislative and regulatory disappointments coupled with dizzying political spin have left many more confused than ever about the overwhelming scientific consensus of climate change. 

It’s been a particularly grim year following the Citizens United decision that ushered in a new era of rampant electoral spending on climate change denial; the U.S. midterm elections produced a Senate filled with climate change skeptics and deniers; a failed climate bill or two, and after the Copenhagen talks failed to produce any real results.  In addition, many pundits and analysts are giving us good reason to believe the U.S. won’t see a climate bill for two years, and little reason to believe that real climate progress will be made in Cancun next week. It seems there’s a lot of reason to feel distressed.  

Last week marked a year since the so-called Climategate “scandal” sent climate change deniers into an echo chamber frenzy.  Bud Ward and John Wihbey aptly note that to even call it “climategate” lends it credence that is undeserved.  Yet it is imperative that we try to learn lessons from it.   This certainly won’t be the last difficult year for the climate change movement; an increasingly challenging political environment promises more interesting times ahead, both for the science and for the scientists who devote their lives to the subject.  In a nutshell, we’ve got our work cut out for us.

Writing on his Dot.Earth blog, the New York Times’ Andy Revkin passes on a long and insightful quote from the historian Dr. Spencer Weart, to looks back from a dark future to analyse what happened in the early part of the 20th century to bring the world to ruin.

It’s well worth the read and is something of a credit to Revkin, who quoted the passage regardless of references like: “… the media coverage represented a new low” and “even in leading newspapers like The New York Times, critics with a long public record for animosity and exaggeration were quoted as experts.”

But then for most of his career, Revkin has been a little like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, fallible, but still the a leading voice for reason - at his paper and among most North American newspapers.

Who can you trust, if not your own advisers? That is the inconvenient question raised by NYT reporter Andrew C. Revkin in a newly published article that reveals the extent to which the coal and oil industries ignored the advice of their own scientists on the question of climate change.

The Global Climate Coalition (how’s that for an Orwellian name?), an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change “could not be refuted.”

Check out the New York Times today. 

Science writer Andrew Revkin mentions our 100 Year Letter Project here.

And if that wasn't enough, he also wrote a more in-depth piece on his new Dot Earth blog.   

If you haven't written your entry for the 100 Year Letter Project, please do. In fact, we've decided that the best letters every month will receive a DeSmogBlog swag bag, including the much-coveted DeSmog t-shirt.

We have quite a few already and will start posting them over the next week.

The DeSmogBlog Team has been podcasting up a storm here in Vermont. Here's a round-up of the audio files we've posted so far…

Please enjoy them and pass them along.

Bill Blakemore of ABC talks to author Bill McKibben (6 minutes)

Kevin Grandia interviews Andrew Revkin, New York Times Environment Reporter (6 minutes)

Richard Littlemore interviews Rick Piltz, Founder and Director of Climate Science Watch (7 minutes)

Marc Morano faces off against Bill Blakemore, Andrew Revkin, and Dan Fagin (one hour, 11 minutes)