6

Climate change panel must modernize: head

Even so, its conclusions remain sound, he says


 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, should learn from its mistakes, says its head, Rajendra Pachauri, admitting it wasn’t prepared to face recent criticism. Even so, despite making an error over Himalayan glaciers in its 2007 report, Pachauri said its basic conclusions are still sound, the BBC reports. “We have not been effective at telling the public, ‘yes, we made a mistake’, but that does not change the fact that the glaciers are melting,” he said. The IPCC’s task is becoming more complex, he said, noting that the number of peer-reviewed academic papers it must account for has skyrocketed, and that human error is beginning to creep in. Ministers at the UN Environment Programme’s governing council have said allegations about IPCC errors threaten to undermine its reputation, even though governments use it to create their own climate policies.

BBC News


 
Filed under:

Climate change panel must modernize: head

  1. More tiresome damage control.

  2. Ok Mr Voodoo Science guy.There is no debate.Man made climate change is real.The proof is that it is getting hotter/colder/wetter dryer.Send us billions to stop the planet from drying up/burning up/freezing over/ flooding everything.We need to build an Arc and get one billion snowshoes for the Africans to go with those malaria nets we gave themn cus we also took away DDT for no reason and 40 million dead kids counting? oh well at least we may have saved one falcon in the proess.The fact that not a single person hasd EVER died from ddt doesnt matter. Climate chnage another gift from environuts everywhere.Suzuki,Gore,Mann the three stooges of the Apocolypse.

  3. Bull cookies! The IPCC is morally bankrupt. There was more than just a hint of gray material within its pages. The IPCC was set up to investigate "man-made" global warming. It did not have a mandate to look at climate change in broad strokes. This has resulted in the public misconception that the IPCC knows everything about the climate. There may be a vast amount of information out there regarding climate but it does not have the funding, organization or political backing that the "man-made" crowd have. You cannot take a science, announce the political conclusion of the experiment, and then spend years and grant dollars shoring up the results. Time to end the charade.

  4. Les1958 said: "we also took away DDT for no reason and 40 million dead kids counting? oh well at least we may have saved one falcon in the proess.The fact that not a single person hasd EVER died from ddt doesnt matter. "

    1. DDT was banned in the U.S. because it destroys ecosystems and wipes out a lot of beneficial creatures, including our national symbol, the bald eagle. According to the National Academy of Sciences, DDT is one of the most beneficial chemicals ever created, but must be eliminated because, NAS said, its harms outweigh its benefits. Let that last phrase sink in for a minute. DDT is now known to be carcinogenic (though weakly so in humans), and an endocrine disruptor as well. DDT was banned for good reasons.

    2. How do you calculate 40 million dead kids? Before the DDT ban about 1.5 million kids died annually from malaria. Since the DDT ban in the U.S., it's been about 900,000. If we were to make the same post-hoc error you made, looking solely at death statistics it would appear that the U.S. ban on DDT saved about 38 million kids.

    3. Malaria kills mainly in Africa and Asia. The ban on DDT in the U.S. did not affect malaria fighters in Africa. Mosquitoes don't migrate from the U.S. to Africa. Further, the U.S. ban in 1972 cannot be blamed for health officials' reducing use of DDT in Africa in 1965, seven years earlier. DDT doesn't travel through time.

    4. DDT use was reduced in Africa in the 1960s because it stopped working against malaria-carrying mosquitoes. Lots of stuff is more effective than DDT now.

    Is the rest of your complaint about science as far off the mark?

  5. “Even so, despite making an error over Himalayan glaciers in its 2007 report,”

    I love the way eco- jounalists like to brush this off as a mere error. This was no error, it was put there intentionally. These statements were put there to scare the reader. If they had stated the real conclusion, that it would take 300 years to melt the glaciers, then there would be no fear generated and would be no point in including it at all. And the Himalayan glacier claims were not the only ones; there were many other ridiculous fear claims in the 2007 AR4 report. What concerns me is the fact they stood unchallenged by the scientific community for 3 years. It was only after Copenhagen was safely dead that anyone spoke up. I guess the science wasn’t settled after all, it was silenced.

Sign in to comment.