What are the factors that motivated some governments to interfere with the wording of the IPCC climate report?

Question

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just released an extensive study (based on 29 000 different data sets most of which have been collected in the last 5 years) on climate change revealing the already extensive damage done to our ecosystems and highlighting the dramatic consequences which we will incure unless changes in our ways of life are done.

However, several governments (for example Saudi Arabia, the United States, and China) have actually interfered with the wording of the report to sometimes tone down the anticipated consequences of Global Warming or altogether remove a scientifically-assessed impact of the climate change. I am curious to know what factors or elements would motivate the governments in acting this way (something that could be considered flagrant scientific censure) and potentially jeopardize an increased conscientization of the public towards dangers that are often already affecting our lives in a negative manner.

Answer 1

They're more worried about the short term economic impacts than the long term environmental impacts.

The problem as you know is that by doing nothing now it's going to be infinitely harder and more expensive to deal with the problems in the future.

It is, I fear, a short sighted and irresponsible approach.

If a government were truly democratic it would carry out the wishes of the majority of the electorate. In the US 82% of the population are concerned about global warming - this is the lowest figure for any country in the world (globally the figure is 94%). Politicians ignored the scientists who have been warning about global warming since 1896 and now time is rapidly running out. The people and the politicians need to stop procrastinating and deal with the very real threats that face us and the future generations.

It's not even that big an issue, there are ways and means of dealing with the problem that don't affect our lifestyles and need cost no more than about $50 per person.

Answer 2

Not overly pertinent to me as long as fear mongering(heighten awareness) is left at the door step. If adaptation and mitigation prove successful whats the worry? The common man is doing more than their share of the lifting. Go to the source and get them to explain why they can't adjust. Governments of any sort do not like to be held accountable for pi_s poor decisions. Their solutions are always condensed into more taxes with less benefits while blaming someone else. I almost bought into the C40 community( adaptation), but the more I read the more cynical I became. They are nothing but showcases, while small local municipalities are neglected because their voices fall on deaf ears.

Answer 3

The flat earth society issued their report yesterday. THE US thankfully has decided not to follow it. Only those with little or no education really believe that the earth is warming. Unless you want to doom millions to a life of poverty and set the economy of the world back 100 years you will demand your gov't to quit immediately wasting billions of dollars ion junk science. I can't beliveve that we are in the 21st century and yet we have fools who can belive this hoax. Wake up before it is too late. Do you want to live in the middle ages? Unless you are a fool the answer is no. Maybe you don't care that the mioney spent on nonsense such as global warming could have saved the life of thousands of children a day. Look at the weather in the US almost everywhere you notice the weather is not warmer but about 20 degrees below normal. In California the temperature over the last 10 yrs is at least 2 degrees cooler than normal. Why is the ice pack on Antartica increasing on 98% of that continent. It seems that the global warming lunatics only focus on the remaing 2%.

Answer 4

One reason, in an economical perspective is that it will reduce the short run aggregate supply (that is, production in the short term). This is because costs are added to a business as they must now comply with new regulations. A reduced short run aggregate supply will induce a higher price level (inflation), lower wages/higher unemployment and an overall lower GDP.
However, as we have seen with all sorts of regulations (labor, environmental, etc), regulations push innovations. Environmental regulations could spur economic activity in businesses involved in environmental research and compliance, engineering and technology.Thus, the SRAS would grow, even further past its original position. This leads to the opposite effect with deflation, higher wages, fuller employment and a higher GDP. However this may take 10 years, whereas the short run downfalls are immediate and last 12 months.
Anyway, I don't think it is too bad. The US economy has been in an inflationary period for too long and is not in 'market equilibrium". Before a 'bust' occurs, it might be wise to simmer the market down with regulation to achieve a short term equilibrium and a long run economic growth.

Answer 5

Did you know that people on that panel have sued to get their name take off the reports because the "science" used in the report was so poor.

Also, the original report pointed out where the findings were inconclusive ( which showed up a lot ) but the final, released version had it removed. There was actually a hearing about it in congress, the reasons given amounted to "it made it too hard to read" or some such nonsense.

The real question you should be asking is why was the final report doctored to mask the lack of real scientific evidence? Is this more political than scientific?

Answer 6

Common sense. It's a myth that almost all scientists think humans are causing global warming. Acutally it's worse than a myth, it's a lie.