Will release of AR5 draft help IPCC make good?Richard Treadgold | December 23, 2012
Let us hope so
From Judith Curry comes a remark of such simple goodness I pause in admiration and slowly nod my agreement. Of course there’s hope for the IPCC!
In a learned comment on Matt Ridley’s analysis of the draft AR5 discussion of climate sensitivity, including aerosols, clouds and water vapour, Professor Curry concludes:
JC summary: The leak of the SOD was a good thing; the IPCC still has the opportunity to do a much better job, and the wider discussion in the blogosphere and even the mainstream media places pressure on the IPCC authors to consider these issues; they can’t sweep them under the rug as in previous reports.
There’s nothing difficult in that statement; it’s quite ordinary, really. So it would be easy to overlook the obstacles to making it. Like the instinct for revenge against the IPCC for making so much of a non-existent climate problem to so many for so long.
Who would not want to see them not merely corrected but put entirely out of business? Who dreams of seeing the organisation crushed into dust?
When a mistake by the IPCC is exposed there’s a perfectly understandable urge to chastise the wicked climate scientists and bureaucrats until they fear even to move, much less to speak. Some would like to observe no life left in the IPCC at all.
But Prof Curry reminds us that all we need from the IPCC is good climate science. Just as the climate is uninfluenced by carbon trading, annual conferences in far-flung holiday resorts or, for that matter, human emissions of CO2, so it is unimproved by punitive measures against the IPCC (whatever they might be).
The IPCC leaders need only stop selecting scientific papers that suit their case and stop choosing climate forecasts that reinforce their belief in future calamity for the rest of their team to start putting together an accurate picture of the climate.
We need a picture of the climate, the complete climate and only the climate. For any part of the picture to be misleading does us all a disservice — the members of the IPCC no less than the ordinary citizen blogger.
The consequent reduction in over-blown rhetoric might also permit a realistic assessment of actual environmental damage caused by western nations, instead of the rather silly “climate justice” accusations levelled at us by foaming-at-the-mouth extremists.
The IPCC only needs to do its job and everyone will be happy. It begins to look as though this 1st Regiment of Irregulars, as our voluntary militia might be called, in agitating and auditing in all its various capacities, could succeed in bringing the IPCC process to heel where establishment bodies have signally failed.
Though well-directed denunciation and criticism have brought us thus far and probably should not be abandoned, Judith hints that to give praise where praise is due — which is fair — could not, surely, betray the aim, which all of us share, of truth.