Thursday, October 14, 2010

IPCC reform (not)

The IPCC meeting in Busan is over.
The first message was from Chris Field, co-chair of WG2, reassuring all authors that the decisions made were in the best interest of the IPCC -- without even explaining what those decisions were. Although one could interpret this as a classic example of paternalism, let's give Chris the benefit of doubt and assume that he was tired after an intense meeting and in a rush to the airport.

BBC and Reuters offer some detail into the decisions made: a committee was formed to look into the matter.

Another day, another farce in climate land.

Cheers in all the wrong places (four blogs who are no friend of the IPCC, and one blog on par with Pachauri). More sober stuff here, and bitter stuff here and here.


  1. So Dr Tol,
    Did I cheer? I am not sure I did. I am however happy to be one of the 'wrong places', for sure.

  2. Jubilation was indeed suppressed.

  3. No Dr Tol, it was not. For the simple reason that there was none to start with.

    I see the IPCC as two things - the bureaucratic machinery, and the scientists. The organization - has used this episode as an opportunity, as all bureaucracies are wont to - to win more permanent posts, resources and roles to itself. It has completely failed to comprehend its own failure. I feel a sense of outrage (mild).

    The scientists get used by the system - many are happy to. I sort of feel sorry for them, even the advocate-types.

    Then of course, I mentioned the NIER South Korea report which found that their tangerine growth will increase 36 fold in the next 30 years and food poisoning rates will rise by a precise "15.8 percent" in the next thirty years.

    What is there not laugh at, although such laughter is not out of joy?