Will the IPCC Be Ready to Communicate About Its Fifth Assessment Report?

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.  Revkin reports the following:

As the IPCC prepares its Fifth Assessment Report, it does so with what, to my eye, appears to be an utterly inadequate budget for communicating its findings and responding in an agile way to nonstop public scrutiny facilitated by the Internet. I would love to think that the countries that created the climate panel could also contribute to boosting the panel’s capacity for transparency, responsiveness and outreach.

I made this point recently in an e-mail exchange with three leaders of the climate panel’s next assessment – the chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Thomas Stocker and Christopher Field, scientists respectively co-leading the reports on climate science and impacts.

They all agreed that more resources and a clear communications strategy are badly needed. “Despite several years of highlighting the need for effective communications and outreach, we have really made very little headway, and I know that we cannot delay action in this area much longer,” Dr. Pachauri wrote. “If we do, it would be at our own peril.”

Since Revkin wrote this, there is at least one positive sign. The IPCC just released a “Communications Strategy,” drafted at its May Abu Dhabi session, which says many of the right things. The organization will apparently be hiring a Senior Communications Manager and trying to coordinate a mechanism for rapid response. And there is much else in the document to praise—but I also note the following:

There are significant resource implications in communicating IPCC work effectively, and the Panel will require regular updates on the financial implications of implementing the strategy. 

Revkin puts it a lot more bluntly: “without more resources from the 194 countries that sponsor the effort, I see scant prospect for concrete improvement.

It appears that the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report is due out in 2013 and 2014. So basically, the IPCC has about two years to really get together a serious communications mechanism for the moment when it is going to be needed most. Let us hope that the current strategy document is only the beginning, and that dollars will follow good intentions.

The IPCC, like every scientific organization, needs to understand that the work is not over just because you’ve finished doing the science and published it. In fact, the work has only begun.


Mangan may not know that the conservative government here brought in a deeply unpopular GST (goods and services tax) a few years back; pricing carbon was never going to be popular and that’s factored in - it takes real leadership to implement highly unpopular but necessary measures.

His second reference cuts and pastes a rather whimsical take on climate deniers; if Mangan had read the whole article he gives the greenies and leftist a hefty serve too. His conclusion is balanced.

So what was your point about the climate science?

“His second reference cuts and pastes a rather whimsical take on climate deniers; if Mangan had read the whole article he gives the greenies and leftist a hefty serve too. His conclusion is balanced. ”

Correct. Also Richard points out something important in his article. The commitments that are being asked of us are hardly anywhere near what those living through WW1 & 2 had to go through to safeguard future generations. They are superficial if anything. An interruption to our high technology well serviced lifestyles we are used to.

It’s funny how in this argument, the deniers with the loudest voices are probably some of our more wealthier people. It is mostly billionaires protesting it,plus denier media entities on salaries bigger than our prime ministers & presidents & people generally doing ok that are the most vocal.

Or are you not ready to put your name to the list to see whether in the future you’re right or wrong?

Maybe the problem is that you know you’re wrong but don’t want to face the consequences.

After all, if it’s all a scam, then in 20-30 years time you’ll have put your name down as the one who was right.

So, do you have the courage of your convictions, or do you want to hide?

I suspect Mike supports the recent death threats on pro AGW scientists going by his rhetoric about shutting down scientific institutions & defunding them.

The death threats all to clearly illustrate that the deniers dont think the pro agw science is crap or a hoax. They don’t like the results & are willing to go to any length to prevent the truth being known.

Phil M,

Thanks for your efforts here.

To everyone else:
www.skepticalscience.com is an excellent source of scientific information refuting the same old myths and lies being peddled by denialists and “skeptics” here.

Just read a review of the processes and procedures that produced AR4 http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/”

A bit of digging around on the IPCC site seems to imply that not many of the recommendations are going to be implemented in AR5.

A statement like “Having author teams with diverse viewpoints is the first step toward ensuring that a full range of thoughtful views are considered”
and “However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence.”

Seems like the new Communications Manager is going to have an interesting job.