Press Conference by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Review

 

of Procedures by InterAcademy Council

 

The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this morning voiced hope that a newly-released review of Panel working methods would strengthen its efforts, as well as its public credibility, while he stressed that the overall conclusions of its assessments were not in doubt.

“Science has confirmed that climate change is real,” Rajendra Pachauri told correspondents at Headquarters, immediately following the release of a report by the InterAcademy Council, "Climate Change Assessments:  Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC”.  [A summary of the preceding InterAcademy Council press conference has been issued separately.]

Joining Dr. Pachauri to answer questions were Thomas Stocker, co-Chair of the IPCC’s Working Group 1 on the physical science basis for climate change; Chris Field, co-Chair of Working Group 2 on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; Youba Sokona, co-Chair of Working Group 3 on mitigation; and Renate Christ, Secretary of the IPCC.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the IPCC in March 2010 commissioned the review from the InterAcademy Council, an international umbrella body for science academies, following the IPCC’s acknowledgement of errors in projecting the rate of the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers in its fourth climate assessment of 2007.  A controversy arose after related e-mails were hacked and leaked.

“Science thrives on honest, well-reasoned debated,” Dr. Pachauri said.  “And there has been a productive debate this year about how to further strengthen the IPCC’s work,” he said, affirming that the recommendations from the InterAcademy Council and other organizations would help guide work on IPCC’s future assessments of climate change science, including the fifth one, to be published in 2013 and 2014.

“But we also have to remember that honest scientific discourse wilts under gross distortions and ideologically-driven posturing,” he added.  He could not comment on the specific InterAcademy Council findings, as they had just been released, but he said the Panel was prepared for the results whatever they were, stressing that it had itself initiated the impartial, rigorous process after its credibility had been challenged. 

He noted, in addition, that the InterAcademy Council review was the seventh this year on various aspects of climate science, with several others looking directly at the validity of the IPCC’s methods and conclusions.  None of those studies found flaws with the fundamental science of climate change, he stressed, citing in particular the Muir Russell review from the United Kingdom, the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.  The IPCC, in any case, was determined to improve, he said.

In that effort, the Governments that form the IPCC would carefully review the InterAcademy Council recommendations at a plenary in October, he said, emphasizing that those Governments would decide on what actions to take.

When several correspondents noted that the InterAcademy Council recommendations called for a change of leadership for each IPCC assessment and asked if he would step down, Mr. Pachauri reiterated that it was up to Governments to decide on specific actions, but that he remained committed to implementing the changes, stressing that the Council’s recommendations were “forward-looking”, and that they proposed formalizing many structural improvements he himself had instituted during his tenure.

Citing questions that had arisen in the media over Mr. Pachauri’s conflicts of interest, correspondents then asked if he felt that the InterAcademy Council call for changes of leadership, as well as its tightening of conflict of interest rules, was a rebuke of his stewardship.  He said that a conflict of interest and disclosure policy, concerning everyone from experts to lead authors, was indeed necessary, but that was not to say that industry should be left out of the climate change discussion; on the contrary, industry had to be involved.

He said that the two reporters who raised questions about his own conflicts had been totally discredited and one paper in which allegations had been published issued an apology ten days ago.  His being on the board of a corporation connected to the Indian Government had been clearly disclosed, he added, stressing that “every penny” of his sitting fees was passed on to the non-profits he was involved in.  Dr. Field concurred that Dr. Pachauri had made an extensive release of all his involvements, agreeing also that comprehensive disclosure policies would be helpful.

Asked if he was going beyond analysis when he said that the Fourth Assessment Report would shock people and Governments into taking more serious action, Dr. Pachauri said that he did not advocate for any particular response strategy, but that any sensible person would be shocked at the magnitude of the problem.  Dr. Stocker added that all the recommendations rest on the scientific findings.  If some of those findings seem shocking, it could be stated.  It was necessary, both acknowledged however, to place a greater emphasis on communicating uncertainties where they occurred.

Asked how the InterAcademy Council’s review could affect the outcome of the next major meeting of the parties to the Climate Change Convention in Cancun, Dr Pachauri and Dr. Field reiterated that the robustness and reliability of climate change science was clearly established by the reviews, and, if anything, that should help stir greater action in Cancun.

Pressed on whether the IPCC had regret over the errors, Dr. Pachauri said he regretted the one error found, on the Himalayan glaciers, but the entire panel stressed that those errors were minor, supporting all the reports in the context of the overall validity of the assessments.  At the same time, Dr. Pachauri underlined how seriously it took the controversy, as well as the need to strengthen the IPCC’s credibility.

In that regard, the panel stressed that such issues as natural variability and the lack of year-by-year predictability had been taken into account despite criticism.  Natural drivers, such as the sun and volcanoes, were involved, they said, but that did not contradict the finding that manmade drivers were responsible for most of the climate change experienced over the past 50 years.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record