Category: IPCC

Categories
Denial International processes IPCC Predatory delay Science Scientists

April 19, 2002 – Exxon got a top #climate scientist sacked.

On the 19th of April 2002, the chair of the IPCC, Bob Watson failed to get a second term as chair, even though he wanted one, and (almost) everyone else wanted him to have it. 

As per the Guardian’s coverage

“At a plenary session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Robert Watson, a British-born US atmospheric scientist who has been its chairman since 1996, was replaced by an Indian railway engineer and environmentalist, R K Pachauri.

Dr Pachauri received 76 votes to Dr Watson’s 49 after a behind-the-scenes diplomatic campaign by the US to persuade developing countries to vote against Dr Watson, according to diplomats. The British delegation argued for Dr Watson and Dr Pachauri to share the chairmanship.

The US campaign came to light after the disclosure of a confidential memorandum from the world’s biggest oil company, Exxon-Mobil, to the White House, proposing a strategy for his removal.”

[see also the Ecologist in 2018]

tt’s an example of how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change works – the word to look for is governmental. 

Why this matters. 

We’re not getting the politics- free science, which the denialists say they want. We’re getting the science that has been deemed acceptable to the politicians who are often little more than Meat Puppets for vested interests.

And this is a very, very familiar story.

What happened next?

The IPCC has kept going. The message hasn’t changed. Except the time horizons keep shrinking (have shrunk to nowt).

Categories
International processes IPCC Science

March 25, 1988- World Meteorological Organisation sends IPCC invites.

On this day in 1988 the World Meteorological Organisation, (the clue is in the name) sent out invites to be part of what is now known as the IPCC

“In the absence of an official US initiative, WMO took the lead and held discussions with UNEP on this proposal. Eventually, a slightly modified version was sent out by the Secretary General of WMO on March 25, 1988 to member governments inquiring whether their country would like to be represented on a proposed ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’ (Obasi, 1988).”

Agrawala, S. (1998a, p 615)

The context is this

The discovery of the ozone “hole” gave atmospheric scientists a high profile and trust.  Atmospheric scientists had finally decided at a meeting hosted by WMO, UNEP and ICSCU,, in Villach, Austria, in October 1985, that the carbon dioxide problem they had been studying and talking about in-depth for roughly 15 years, needed proper policy responses

The right-wing administration of the US “President” Ronald Reagan was split, but mostly opposed to this. They DEFINITELY did not want independent scientists pushing them around.  So, we get an intergovernmental panel rather than an international one.  They key sources – but by no means the only ones –  for this, are

Agrawala, S. Context and Early Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39, 605–620 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005315532386

Agrawala, S. Structural and Process History of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39, 621–642 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005312331477


What happened next

The IPCC first met in November 1988, in Geneva. Within a year and a half its first assessment report was ready. It was, of course, attacked and enormous attempts were made to water it down.  Things really got heated (ho ho) when the second assessment report came out.  That was very very nasty indeed…

Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide accumulates

Categories
IPCC

Feb 21, 1995 – an invitation to engage in the IPCC is declined, again…

On this day, February 21 1995, eminent climate scientist Tom Wigley tried (for the second time) to get Pat Michaels, climate “contrarian,” to engage in the IPCC review process for the second assessment report.

… Patrick Michaels was invited to contribute to Chapter 8. He declined to do so. One of the lead authors of Chapter 8, Tom Wigley, wrote to Pat Michaels on November 21, 1994, and on February 21, 1995, soliciting comments on the portrayal of Michaels’s Franklin Institute paper in a December 8, 1994 version of Chapter 8. Prof. Michaels did not respond to these requests. Gelbspan, R. (1998) Page 235

Michaels who’s still alive, so I have to be careful about what I say, declined.

There was no margin in it for him. It’s easier to be lobbing bricks from the outside, and not having to actually engage with the reality of what’s being said, rather than a straw man you’ve created. 

Wigley had been working on climate change for decades, is he still alive and kicking. A few years earlier he had led on a day-long briefing of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet, which I may cover in April…

What happened next

The second Assessment Report of the IPCC got viciously attacked because it said that there was a discernible influence of human activity. Ultimately, the ferocity of the attacks made it impossible for some corporate members of the Global Climate Coalition to stay on board. And you see this, the attack dogs don’t realise that by barking and snarling as loud as they are ultimately making it difficult for their owners to keep feeding them

Categories
anti-reflexivity IPCC United States of America

Feb 19, 2011 – defunding the IPCC

On this day, 19th of February 2011, House Republicans in the United States Congress pushed through a symbolic statement throwing shade and threats of defunding at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Blaine Luetkemeyer, (still) a Missouri Republican, called the UN panel “nefarious.” [coverage here.]

The context is amusing, because it was actually their hero, Ronald Reagan, who signed off on the birth of the IPCC as an intergovernmental rather than international panel. 

This theatre, this throwing of red meat to the base, chipped away at the legitimacy of the IPCC.  So, while the resolution had no particular impact at the time (that I am aware of), it had a cultural one. It is also deeply uncomfortable for the scientists to be on the receiving end. And this is all part of more general “flak” as per Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model of media.

Categories
Denial IPCC Netherlands

Feb 10, 2010 – Dutch scientists try to plug denialists’ holes in the dike

On this day, in 2010, 55 leading Dutch scientists wrote an open letter to the Dutch parliament, pointing out that although there were inaccuracies in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, that did not in fact invalidate the basic findings. The reason they needed to even do this was the so-called Climategate hack of late 2009. The theft of emails from a University of East Anglia server was, as the American right-wingers like to say, a “nothing” burger, but one that was briefly tasty to climate denialists. 

Why it matters

Toni Morrison’s astute comment about racism, and racist narratives being there to distract and to exhaust and to prevent you from doing the work that you want to do applies here; white progressives could learn a lot from reading people of colour, who have been putting up with character assassination and – checks notes – actual assassination four hundreds of years. 

The quote is this – 

“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”

Listen to Morrison’s 1975 speech, recently digitised, here.]

What happened next, 

The IPCC kept producing assessment reports, possibly with a little more care. The Dutch government got sued by Urgenda [see 2019 judgement] and the emissions kept climbing. And the climate denial people are now mostly doing predatory delay. And hyping the purported costs of transitioning, (not that the costs –  both financial and cognitive – are anything other than enormous).

Categories
IPCC United States of America

February 6, 2001: ExxonMobil Lobbyist Calls on White House to Remove Certain Government Climate Scientists

On this day, in 2001, the oil company Exxon was throwing its weight around trying to get specific scientists pushed off the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In a memo to the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol denounces esteemed climate scientist Robert Watson, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as someone “handpicked by Al Gore” who is using the media to get “coverage for his views.

He asks “Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?” In addition to Watson, Randol names other climate experts who he wants “removed from their positions of influence.” 

You can read the document here, on climate files.

And they succeeded. Bob Watson only served one term where the normal expectation was two. And this is because he was too independently minded and wasn’t going to waffle about technology saving us. 

This is not a new story. Historically scientists have come under ferocious attack, not just for their climate work, but also ozone hole, asbestos, you name it. There’s a lovely example in An Enemy of the People, the play by Henrik Ibsen, which by the way, inspired the movie, Jaws… but I digress. 

Why this matters

We need to remember that a lot of what we see and hear and take as accepted fact, is actually constructed for us actively or passively, and that critical voices have been removed. For the benefit of continued capital accumulation. This is Gramsci in action, people. This is how hegemony is constructed and maintained. 

What happened next

The IPCC kept producing reports and is producing another one. Meanwhile, the carbon dioxide accumulates thanks to the actions and inactions of people like you and me who have failed to build the kinds of movements that could have made a difference despite having freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of information. It might be a good idea for us to look ourselves in the mirror.