When the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approved its latest report on global warming two weeks ago, questions about political arm-twisting were immediately asked.
In a last-minute wrangling, scientists were left with no option but to remove what some deemed critical parts of the report. Critics then accused the panel of toning down some of the real effects of climate change.
Others accused them of being ‘a bunch of hysterical political scientistsâ€.
Coleen Vogel and Guy Midgley, two of the South African authors of the report, have another view.
‘We are not an advocacy group, promoting climate change. We do not make policy,†said Midgley.
He said scientists have faced accusations of trying to create a new ‘environmental religion†and of advancing the financial or political agendas of others. The panel was also accused of trying to create mass hysteria. ‘The IPCC has no aspirations to make global warming a world religion,†Midgley said with a smile.
The panel has become the leading authority on the effects of climate change and the fate of the planet. Established in 1988 by the United Nations to evaluate the risk of human-induced climate change, the panel comprises a range of regional scientists who produce a peer-reviewed survey every few years, which is also reviewed by governments. The report is then presented to policymakers for approval.
The latest report hit world headlines by warning that rising temperatures could lead to widespread floods, water shortages and species extinction. Africa was the most vulnerable continent.
The findings were released last week in a 23-page summary whose every word was endorsed by 130 countries in a marathon session in Brussels. In some cases, a single word sparked hours of debate.
‘The report gets put up and we essentially negotiate line by line,†explained Vogel. If, for example, you want to include a table, it has to be negotiated word by word.â€
Some governments had queried the science in the report and their concerns had to be met. ‘You cannot just say ‘We hear your concerns and we move along now’,†she said. ‘You either have to change the statement or adjust it till you have 100% consensus.â€
Consensus was not easy to reach. Last-minute debates centred on objections from Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, who insisted on toning down the ‘level of confidence†in how much regional climate change was affecting natural systems. But scientists demanded the retention of the section, and a compromise was reached.
A scenario showing the potential impact of policy on climate change was omitted, while certain graphics, including some showing temperature rises based on different hypotheses, were also heavily debated. Vogel said everyone could now live with the final document.
‘I think some scientists felt some of the messages were watered down,†she said. ‘But we still have the chapters which contain the meat of what we were saying, so people can still go back to the original document.†The full 1 500-page report will be released next month.
While scientists were gathering data, scientist Chris Landsea resigned, claiming the IPCC had become ‘politicisedâ€.
The need for science and policy to find ways to interact is critical for various reasons, not least for future sustainability, Vogel commented.
‘I think it’s commendable that the IPCC tries to bring scientists together with politicians and policymakers,†she said. ‘There is a perception that scientists are up there and that the politicians are clobbering us from all sides. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Science is a contested field. It is a construction, so the very nature of science urges us to want the debate.â€