Is IPCC AR4 an Advocacy Document?
August 17th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The IPCC claims that it is “policy relevant, but policy neutral.” What this phrase actually means is clear as mud. According to various statements by its chairman Rajendra Pachauri over the past few years (e.g., link), one might be excused for thinking that the IPCC is really an advocacy document clothed in the language of science. Mr. Pachauri’s most recent comments about the report in a Reuters news report today do nothing to dispel that view:
The IPCC review, grouping over 2,000 scientists who advise the United Nations, is published in February and is expected to show stronger evidence for climate change and man’s part in it.
“I think the conditions are just right for this report to make a perceptible impact,” said IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. “I think there’s enough observed evidence now that certainly will influence the policymakers.”
“I’ve just come back from one of the small mountain states of India, and they regard the melting of the glaciers as the most important problem they’re facing. Their entire water supply gets completely distorted.”
Talks this year on extending the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol on curbing emissions beyond 2012 could also focus action.
“There is a bit of shadow boxing going on, each group of countries is waiting for what the others are going to do,” said Pachauri. “My feeling is that in the next year and a half things will accelerate and perhaps you will see some action.”
If the IPCC is being prepared with a goal of making a “perceptible impact” and “influencing policymakers” then no matter what the IPCC says, it is certainly not “policy neutral.” Its leadership clearly has a political agenda and it would be appropriate to include that agenda in the report, rather than hiding it behind science. Using science to advance a political agenda, but not openly acknowledging that agenda, is a form of stealth issue advocacy and a recipe for the pathological politicization of climate science. Stealth issue advocacy will severely limit the contributions of the IPCC to debate over climate policy. As an alternative approach, the IPCC should openly discuss a wide range of policy options, rather than perpetuating the continuing, fairly obvious fiction that it is “policy neutral.”
August 17th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Of course its intended to have “perceptible impact” and be “influencing policymakers”. Thats part of the point of producing it.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Roger-
I know we’ve had this argument before, but here goes again! I think you’re parsing this text with too much precision. If I say that I hope that the IPCC report has a “perceptible impact” and influences policymakers, what I mean is that I hope policymakers accept the relevant science and move on to debating the important normative choices: adaptation vs. mitigation, what policy would most effectively encourage adaptation and mitigation, etc. Thus, I think that there are multiple interpretations of that statement.
Also, it might be that Puchauri has a personal opinion, but does that then become the IPCC’s agenda? And since there are thousands of scientists participating in the IPCC process, how do you even determine what the agenda is? Is it some kind of weighted average of the agendas of the individual people?
Regards.
August 17th, 2006 at 10:58 am
There is nothing on the entire planet so ugly as ’science’ advocacy. The very most ugly ’science’ is that which has a political agenda. Additionally, when ’science’ crosses the line and enters the policy and political arenas, all the ground rules change. Scientists can no longer simply play unnoticed in their sandboxes. Policy decisions that effect the health and safety of the public will never be made in isolation from extremely close monitoring. Unfortunately for the ’scientists’ involved, the monitoring will be conducted by those least qualified to be monitors; actually unqualified in most cases.
One especially upsetting aspect of the current situation is the fact that some ’scientists’ do not attempt to hide their personal political agenda and in fact openly and proudly display it. At the same time these same ’scientists’ will shout ‘follow the money’ whenever dissent is heard from certain quarters. It’s a bad, bad situation and a hard, hard rain is gonna fall.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
William- What impact and what influence do you see as the point of the IPCC? Please be specific. Thanks!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Andrew-
Thanks, a few replies.
1. You write, “what I mean is that I hope policymakers accept the relevant science and move on to debating the important normative choices.” We’ve discussed this before and it is a fool’s game. There is no need for policy makers to accept relevant science in order to reach a political consensus. In fact, efforts to achieve universal agreement on science are in fact obstacles to effective policy.
2. The IPCC has a strong bias against adaptation, as I’ve discussed. It does not set up a discussion of policy options because it does not present or evaluate any!
3. Pachaui’s comments are clear enough. He is the chairman and he respresents the institution. If he wants to serve as a political advocate, he should, but in a different position. Whether it is fair or not, how Pachauri represents himself and the IPCC will refect on the institution and its perceived legitimacy in the political process.
Thanks!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
Dan- I don’t mind that scientists are open about their political motives. In fact, I’d prefer he openness. I have problems when they say one thing and do another. The IPCC should engage policy, by presenting a range of options, not by picking sides. Thanks!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Roger-
You wrote:
We’ve discussed this before and it is a fool’s game. There is no need for policy makers to accept relevant science in order to reach a political consensus.
I agree that it is not REQUIRED for policymakers to accept science … but FOR THIS DEBATE, I think it would be greatly clarified if policymakers accepted the relevant scientific consensus. Thus, if I were an author (which I am not), I would hope to make a perceptible impact on the process by writing a clear document that lays out the case in terms that the skeptics have a hard time criticizing.
As far as the IPCC’s bias, that may well exist, but I don’t think you can use the quoted text as evidence. There are too many other interpretations. The problem here is that you see everything through “IPCC is biased”-colored glasses. It’s just like those who see everything through AGW-colored glasses — they see Katrina and immediately conclude AGW is to blame. You see a quote by Puchauri and immediately conclude “the IPCC is biased.”
You may well be right — just like those that attribute Katrina to AGW might well be right — but in both cases the evidence is quite weak.
Regards.
August 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Dan- I don’t mind that scientists are open about their political motives. In fact, I’d prefer he openness. I have problems when they say one thing and do another. The IPCC should engage policy, by presenting a range of options, not by picking sides. Thanks!
August 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Andrew-
Thanks. You are of course free to characterize my motives any way you’d like, but perhaps you might as well respond to the substance of my arguments about political bias in the IPCC and expressed by its leadership. Here are some examples:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000246politics_and_the_ipc.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000296ipccfccc_issues_at_.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000328more_politics_and_ip.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000334politics_or_science.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000363more_on_why_politics.html
And a peer reviewed paper explaining the bias against adaptation:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2005. Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 548-561.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf
“Is not, is not!” doesn’t count as a substantive reponse;-)
August 17th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Roger-
I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not arguing that the IPCC is or is not biased towards any particular policy. My point is that the quote you provided is not evidence that any bias exists. The analogy with Katrina is exact: the existence of Katrina is not evidence of AGW — in fact, our present understanding says that Katrina tells us nothing about AGW.
Making weak arguments that the quote above shows bias weakens a potentially legitimate argument you might be able to make.
Regards.
August 17th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Andrew- I’m not sure what is unclear about Pachauri’s statement made in the larger context of his earlier advocacy. He is clearly calling for a particular type of action (mitigation under Kyoto) on climate change by specific policy makers (those who haven’t already signed on). What is ambiguous about that?
Is what you are saying that maybe he misspoke? Maybe he didn’t mean it? Maybe he was misquoted? Once this might be the case, but have a look at the links I have provided. Pachauri has a track record of advocacy. This may or may not reflect a true bias in the IPCC, but it sure creates a perception of a bias.
Thanks!
August 17th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Same old circles it looks like. The US admin is currently not accepting the WG I science. This has large implications for policy. If AR4 did convince them, things would change. Is this so hard to accept?
August 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
William-
Yes it is hard to accept! It is simply wrong on two counts.
1. When I testified before Congress last month James Connaughton, Bush’s head of the CEQ, testified on the panel before mine. He was asked if the Bush Adminsitration accepts IPCC WGI science as presented by Tom Karl of NOAA on the same panel. His response, “yes, absolutely.”
2. Accepting a particular body of science does not lead to agreement on a particular set of political commitments. This is the logical fallacy called the “is-ought problem” — see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
Seeking to use the IPCC to compel the US to change its climate policy will not only fail to succeed, but it will likely destroy the practical value of the IPCC itself.
Thanks!
August 17th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Professor Pielke you are totally absolutely completely on target with a dead-center bullseye.
It is very unfortunate that the discussions have had to get down to this level of issues in contrast to maintaining a very much more scientific character.
And I think it is not ‘this administration’, or any executive-branch administration, that will set any US policy. It will be up to the House and Senate to write and pass any laws affecting US policy. Both of which I think are now, and forever have been, more or less vacuous on any actually workable ‘energy policy’.
August 17th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
From the Reuters article:
“The European Union is doing too little to achieve its goal of limiting global warming although it portrays itself as a world leader, some academics say.
They want upcoming studies of the environment to add new urgency to international action to axe use of fossil fuels.”
In other words, “We know the proper course of action already…let’s find facts that support that action (and ingore those that don’t).”
The brave new world of environmental “science!”
August 17th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
“Everyone talks about 2 degrees (Celsius) as if we were on target,” said Kevin Anderson, climate scientist at Britain’s Tyndall Centre.
Ummmmm…maybe that’s because we *are?*
See slide 43 (page 57 of 64) of James Hansen’s Keeling Lecture:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/keeling_talk_and_slides.pdf
The forcing growth rates of GHGs (including methane, CO2, and other GHGs) are currently actually below James Hansen’s scenario that results in 1 degree Celsius temperature rise from 2000 to 2100. When combined with approximately 1 degree Celsius from 1880 to 2000, the result is very much on course for a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise from 1880 to 2100.
August 18th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Is IPCC AR4 an Advocacy Document?
Well of course it is! The IPCC has been an advocacy program from the very beginning. Certainly, most of the 2,000 scientists that participate are doing honest science, but everything is being steered by committee leaders on up; the layers above those scientists.
There is very little rationality in thinking that all problems arriving from climate change should be handled by controlling GHGs, yet that is the only thing that is talked about after the IPCC releases one of these massive works (or in this case, long before the report is released).
If, however, the primary goal of the IPCC and the United Nations was to gerrymander a redistribution of global wealth or strengthen the bureaucratic hold on the global population, then a carbon restriction policy would make absolute sense. Adaptation and innovation policies would bring immediate and much more efficient solutions to the problems of climate change, yet have had little play. If that is not an agenda, what is?
August 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
I dont know what your point is, Roger. It remembers me at an interview with Ulrike Meinhof just before she went into the terroristic underground. She said: “Everything is political. Kids playing in the sun, leaves falling from trees, all is political.” With your definition, yes, even general relativity is political. Georg
August 18th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Roger, did it occur to you to perhaps not take Connaughton’s statement at face value? Despite periodic rhetorical shifts, it remains crystal clear that the Bushies are committed to do nothing of substance on AGW for their remaining term in office.
As for adaptation, I entirely agree with the view that it would be counter-productive to de-link adaptation from mitigation, if for no other reason than that policymakers who fail to understand the need for mitigation will be poor advocates for adaptation that is needed because of a past failure to recognize the need for mitigation. Perhaps it would be better to say that they will be advocates for poor adaptation due to the insincerity of their reasons. For example, politicians who like to shovel money at fossil fuel companies will tend to be more receptive to adaptation strategies that involve the continued shoveling of money at fossil fuel companies.
Similarly, scientists need to avoid falling for endorsing mitigation steps that fall far short of the need, although this is trickier.
August 19th, 2006 at 11:12 am
As Steve Bloom says, “…it remains crystal clear that the Bushies are committed to do nothing of substance on AGW for their remaining term in office.” This is actually quite refreshing.
The previous administration which included Al Gore made all kinds of claims and yet did nothing of substance on AGW.
The previous Canadian administration made all kinds of claims and yet did nothing of substance on AGW.
The current EU administration(s) made all kinds of claims and yet are doing nothing of substance on AGW.
It seems to me the governments of the world are making all kinds of claims to support the IPCC but doing absolutely nothing of substance to create policies to prevent the dire consequences foretold by the profits of doom.
In my opinion Prof. Pielke is misreading Mr. Pachauri.
Mr. Pachauri is gainfully (for him) employed at the centre of a geopolitical whirl wind that has absolutely no personal downside. I suspect he is having far too much fun playing he game to want to get off.
August 20th, 2006 at 7:35 am
The summary presented by Jeff canot be repeated often enough.
One of the more disgusting aspects of ’science’ advoacy is the constant and unceasing repetition of political bumper sticker spin unsupported by true facts. Educated and intelligent scientists should never have to reduce valid true facts to something that will fit on a bumper sticker.
Another is the constant and unceasing repetition of ‘Big Oil’, ‘Big Coal’, and ‘Big Fossil’. These industries do not directly contribute significant amounts of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. It is the demand for, and consequent consumption of, the products and services of these industries that emit enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Additionally, financial arguments, if true, can and should be supported by numbers.
And yes, ‘Big Science’ has its personal financial rewards that are almost never mentioned. Los Alamos County in New Mexico has a per-captia income level that is among the top five in the country, if not first place.
Finally, has anyone seen plans for reduction of CO2 emissions that have more than a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being successful in the real world?
Well, I guess a more important question is has anyone seen any scientific facts that support the argument that we can control the climate by slightly preturbing one small component of extremely and inherently complex coupled dynamic systems.
Well, actually, given the time scales involved, the important question might be haven’t we already past the point in time for which proposed ’solutions’ can be shown to be effective. Not to mention the time scale of about 50 decades needed to implement significant changes in extremely complex world-wide infrastructures if we started today. The time-scale problem is probably the overriding aspect of the real-world workability problem.
hmmm … so given all this what can the IPCC have left to advocate?