If the IPCC is not a politcal type group why does the "I" stand for intergovernmental?

Answer 1

I'm afraid you have hit the nail on the head. There is no way you can separate government from politics.

Answer 2

The IPCC is an apolitical group and represents most of the governments of the world. These governments have very different views and include democracies, dictatorships, autocracies, monarchies, theocracies, republics etc. Within these represented governments there are politicians from all sides of the political divide from the extreme right to the extreme left and anywhere inbetween. The IPCC would be incapable of acting as a political organisation due to the diversity of it's members.

The IPCC itself is not a government and has no authorative or political powers. It is, in essence, a advisory body to which many governments voluntarily subscribe. The two components of the IPCC are the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Contrary to popluar misconception, the IPCC is not made up of scientists either. It is a panel that studies the work of scientists and evaluates the risks associated with climate change. The IPCC does not conduct it's own research, if it requires further information it commissions studies from outside organisations.

The 'Intergovernmental' part simply means it's a collaboration between different governemnts, it doesn't signify any political persuassion. There are intergovernmental panels and agreements on a huge range of things from terrorist, extradition, airlines, economics, pretty much anything you could care to think of.

Answer 3

When the IPCC is reported in the media as saying that its scientists have come to a consensus view, we are being misled: the IPCC is tasked with never coming back with anything other than a consensus view. Indeed its nerve in delving beyond that which it takes to be the mainstream perspective (of increases in global mean temperature being caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases) tends to dry up altogether.

So, with at least one hand tied behind its collective back, is it any wonder that many serious scientists are, to put it mildly, critical of its merits.

Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (of Colorado University) resigned from the IPCC in 1995, and has been critical of its dismissal of peer-reviewed published work which seeks to contradict its overemphasis on greenhouse gases.

His work has attempted to emphasise the importance of the human forcings of aerosols and land use in any balanced analysis of the impacts on changes in climate, but his work appears to have been overlooked in the assessment Reports and these topics received only the most token of passing mentions - with the greenhouse gas agenda firmly in the forefront - in any "media line" that the IPCC engages in.

It is argued that the IPCC has been established to take a relatively immature scientific endeavour and ramp it up into "The Science" for which there is "A Consensus" amongst "The World's Leading Scientists" such that through media and lobby-group hyping politicians can be absolved from having to engage with the uncertainties that are inherent in what is a progressing field and can focus merely on "what must be done".

It may not be an open form of political engagement as one might traditionally understand it, but it is political nonetheless.

Given that the human impacts on the environment are far greater than merely their greenhouse gas contribution, the notion that human-induced GHGs are largely responsible for recent changes in global mean temperatures is almost certain to be generally regarded as an inadequate hypothesis before long.

And given the latest predictions that 2007 will be seen as the coolest year since 2000 globally, the notion that a relative stasis over the last decade pertains may well also receive greater general acceptance, rather more rapidly than many might currently think.

We shall see.

Of course it remains the case that adapting to environmental changes and improving resources to defend against extreme weather events are going to be the most efficient and effective use of resources in the near term.