By Stephen Leahy
From death threats to aggressive discrediting in the press, disaster has hit the IPCC, the global scientific panel dedicated to studying climate change – and it is now finding ways to regroup and respond.
[See also personal posting Scientists Face Death Threats, Democracy at Risk ]
UXBRIDGE, Canada, Mar 8 (Tierramérica)
Climate change science is under full-scale attack in a last-ditch effort to delay or prevent action by the U.S. government against global warming, experts warn.
U.S. Senator James Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma and climate change denier, in late February released a list of leading climate scientists he wants prosecuted as criminals for misleading the government. Those scientists are receiving hate mail and death threats.
He believes scientists will be killed over this. “I’m not going to let it worry me… but you know it’s going to happen,” said Schneider, one of the most respected climate scientists in the world. “They shoot abortion doctors here.”
This backlash against the evidence of climate change and the scientists themselves is not just a U.S. phenomenon. It is happening in Canada, Australia, Britain, and, to a lesser extent, in Europe and elsewhere.
On the surface, this campaign is about a few errors in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2,800-page report released in 2007 and some 10-year-old personal emails stolen from Britain’s University of East Anglia.
But deeper down, this is the last big effort by the fossil fuel industry to delay action on climate change, just as the tobacco industry successfully delayed understanding of the harmful effects of smoking for several decades, says Schneider.
The media are an accomplice in this, he said, because they have failed to put wild claims into context and continue to interview people like Inhofe and others who have no evidence or credibility on these issues.
“I’m pretty damn angry that media companies are putting profits ahead of truth. The media are deeply broken… That’s a real threat to democracy,” Schneider said.
There is no solid scientific dispute over the simple physics that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-effect gases warm the earth’s atmosphere, and that emissions of these gases from human activities are largely responsible for the increased temperatures over the past decades.
There is also little debate over the observable reality that the Arctic ice is disappearing, glaciers are retreating, weather extremes are more frequent, and spring comes sooner.
At the end of 2009, documents obtained by Internet hackers from the archives of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia were released, and presumable revealed the manipulation of data to present climate change as a phenomenon caused by human activity.
The event caused a stir, and the researchers who were at the center of the controversy said their email accounts had been subject to cyber attacks and that their contents had been presented out of context.
The IPCC, which in 2007 won the Nobel Peace prize alongside former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, did make some mistakes. Critics seized on an acknowledged error buried deep in one of the IPCC reports that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 or earlier.
This assertion was not based on evidence and was “an egregious error,” said Schneider. The ensuing frenzy to find other errors in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report, released in 2007, turned up three trivial errors that in no way affect the report’s findings.
However, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri announced on Feb. 27 that the governments that are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed to set up an independent review
“Meanwhile, we stand firmly behind the rigor and robustness of the 4th Assessment Report’s conclusions,” Pachauri said in a statement.
“The Report’s key conclusions are based on an overwhelming body of evidence from thousands of peer-reviewed and independent scientific studies,” he said.
Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at Canada’s University of British Columbia and a lead author of the IPCC reports, said, “I think the review is a careful and measured response in light of all the rubbish out there.”
The IPCC review will likely be conducted by the world’s most senior scientists, appointed by the national academies of science in various countries. It will take many months to put a review panel together and conduct the review, Weaver told Tierramérica.
“I don’t know what more could be done to improve the process. It is incredibly rigorous,” he said.
Few in the public, including those criticizing the IPCC, have little idea how the organization works. Based in Geneva, the IPCC was established in 1988 to “assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change.” It has a decentralized structure, with few staff, and virtually all work is carried out by thousands of independent scientists and other experts from around the globe who volunteer their time and services.
Every four to five years, thousands of the peer-reviewed reports and studies on climate are collected, assessed, and synthesized so policy makers can understand the current state of climate science.
Governments that are part of the UNFCCC vote to accept each Assessment Report. Only if all countries agree are the findings and conclusions of the IPCC accepted. This process itself means the IPCC is slow moving, cautious and conservative.
Until recently, nearly all criticism of the IPCC had been about its under-estimations of the risks of climate change and inability to keep up with the latest science.
But some powerful U.S. corporate lobbyists have been relentless in their attacks on the IPCC for at least 10 years. Oil industry giant Exxon has long funded such groups and even lobbied the George W. Bush administration (2001-2009) to get rid of the former head of the IPCC, World Bank climatologist Robert Watson.
The Bush administration complied and was to replace Watson with economist Rajendra Pachauri – the same Pachauri that the same lobbyist groups want to resign now.
“We’re in a bizarre time, powered by greed and fear. The general public is more confused than ever,” said Weaver. “And good scientists are saying to themselves,
‘Why would I want to participate in the IPCC?”