Don’t shoot the messenger

Posted on 04 August 2009

Is the IPCC still credible? Andrew Revkin, who covers climate change at the New York Times takes a shot at undermining it, but he misses his target by a mile (or 1.6 kilometers to translate to internationally recognized units).  His article today, “Nobel Halo Fades for the IPCC,” might be acceptable from a generalist journalist at a local newspaper, but from the NYT specialist reporter readers should expect better.  While we at E4 Capital believe that the IPCC is a legitimate subject for critique, Revkin does not win our endorsement.

The article rambles:  The IPCC can’t keep up with the fast pace of the science, it’s biased against dissenting views on disruptive change, it can’t recommend a course of action.  Then there’s a litany of pitfalls that await the upcoming fifth assessment of research on climate trends to be released in 2014.  Again, the article jumps from issue to issue, some relevant, some not, none leading to a conclusion with respect to the IPCC’s abilities.

Two other points in the article are worth mentioning as particularly egregious. Revkin concludes from the beginning that the IPCC doesn’t live up to its mission because “there is scant evidence that nations are acting on its warnings.”  That seems just plain wrong given all the signs of action across the globe.  Where is his evidence? Because first, “emissions have grown.”  This is not evidence of inaction.

The second reason the halo has faded? Revkin describes the intergovernmental talks as “deadlocked.” Where are they deadlocked? Since most successful negotiations will appear to be “deadlocked” to outside observers just before a breakthrough is made, one should take the NYT’s conclusions on this point as premature at best. Again, how does this indict the IPCC, which was never intended to have a role in brokering deals to begin with?

There is a significant body of work and analysis that questions major parts of the IPCC work. We recommend to the NYT that it reload and try again with a critique after doing more research.