Can one review panel save the reputation of the International Panel on Climate Change?

11 September 2010 [MediaGlobal]: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has fallen far from grace since its inception in 1989. Its fourth assessment on the state of the environment won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize alongside former Vice President Al Gore. But climate skeptics have recently attacked the IPCC for erroneous claims and unsound research. Now, the Interacademy Panel (IAC) has taken on the task of an in-depth analysis of the inner workings of the IPCC and the results may decide the way climate change is tackled for years to come.

There are two recent controversies that have plagued the IPCC in the areas of evidence and leadership. What caught the eye of most skeptics was the fourth assessment’s bold prediction that Himalayan glaciers would cease to exist by 2035, a mistake that tarnished the entire 3,000-page report. It came to light that these claims were based on what is called “grey material,” or material not yet peer-reviewed and therefore unacceptable on a broad scientific basis.

Sir Peter Williams, Vice President of the Royal Society and member of the IAC, told MediaGlobal, “In the fourth assessment, we found that procedures for describing uncertainty of findings were different amongst the three working groups of the IPCC. Despite the fact that the researchers thought they had a strongly structured mechanism which was adhered to by all working groups.”

As it stands, there are several review scales used to rank how widely accepted specific findings are within the science community and to what degree there is uncertainty. But these scales do not always line up and are carried out differently by each working group within the IPCC. The IAC’s remedy for this was, simply put, a more stringent policy on reviewing IPCC findings before publishing reports.

Williams added, “The implications of this mistake are enormous. When we asked the question, ‘why did this mistake happen,’ our research always lead to the IPCC management…and we found some areas for improvement. We were never asked to comment on the science. The science is a done deal.”

The question of management leads to the second great IPCC controversy. As many in the media blamed the IPCC’s leader Rajendra Pachauri for the fourth assessment error, questions arose about possible conflicts of interest as Pachauri took part in consulting work for multiple organizations outside of the IPCC. After a thorough investigation by KPMG, an international audit, tax, and advisory service, Pauchari was cleared of the charges but the question of his eight-year reign over the IPCC remained a concern.

Williams said, “It doesn’t take more than a grain of common sense to realize that if you join the IPCC, you’ll spend six years away from the cutting edge of science. A good scientist can bridge that gap—so they stay current—but if you serve two assessment terms, that’s 12 years. You are no longer at the leading edge of that discipline.”

To address this issue, the IAC recommended the creation of a year-round executive board to operate full time for the IPCC, which is in addition to a new statute that would keep any board member from serving more than six years or one assessment cycle.

While the recommendation was not made as a direct attack on Pauchari’s leadership, it is hard to see it as completely separate since Pachauri remains the IPCC’s head going into the group’s fifth assessment report. Pauchari told reporters at the UN that he saw it as his responsibility to see that the IAC’s recommendations were implemented and thus would remain on board until that time.

Will these restructuring mechanisms be enough to restore the IPCC’s reputation? For years the UN-created entity has served as a beacon of excellence, revered for its guidance on policy for mitigating climate change. If its integrity remains in doubt, will climate skeptics take advantage of a new opportunity to declare climate change a farce?

Roseanna Diab, the executive officer of the Academy of Science of South Africa, stated, “If the IPCC is able to embrace the recommendations of the IAC report at its next plenary session, this will go a long way to restoring its credibility. The recommendations are designed to restore trust in the process and the science.”

Should that trust remain in question, the world will have lost one of its greatest bodies of policy mentors. Such a fate could lead societies already at their tipping points straight over the edge, which spells disaster particularly for the Least Developed Countries as they are the places where people grapple hardest with climate change.

Diab added, “In the absence of a coherent body of science-guiding policy, there is a danger of governments taking no action and for the predicted impacts associated with the business-as-usual scenario to take effect. The greater vulnerability of developing countries is well known… there should be a greater urgency for these recommendations to be implemented especially from a developing country perspective”