Hasn't a major problem with the IPCC been the process and distortions of findings that work their way into the Summary for Policy Makers as a result of political wheeling and dealing by various heads of delegations? Isn't this what led Richard Toll to resign and has been a subject of criticism by Judith Curry and others?
I have heard these arguments, but I haven’t ever considered the production of the SPM to be a big deal. Anyone can read the full report, and most people get their spin on it from the media or trusted interpreters (including unreliable sources!)
Roger, the point that I am dancing around here is that citing the detailed scientific reports is an effective means of communicating your message but at the same time it comes across as a general endorsement of the IPCC. When the IPCC puts together the SPM it is a political agenda driven document that is all that 99.9% of the Press, Politicians and their staffs ever read. The SPM provides plenty of snippets to be cherry picked and spouted about by the talking heads. This nonsense reaches 10,000 times more people than your excellent analyses. Furthermore the leaders of the IPCC like Christina Figueres etal ignore the facts and spout the same nonsense as the media.
Certainly you don't believe that there are many ordinary folks that read The whole report. They believe what they see on TV and read in USA Today or the NYTimes. They don't know who the heck Roger Pielke Jr. is.
I certainly agree that there is widespread lack of knowledge and misinformation about what IPCC actually says. It is not perfect but if it didn’t exist we’d have to invent it. I out the lack of understanding down to two things - the media and a general unwillingness by experts to call things straight. I don’t se the SPM as a big deal. 🙏
When you cite the IPCC reports are you distinguishing between the Science/Technical reports and the Summary for Policy Makers?
Good Q. Everything I have cited in this series comes from the main body of the report.
Hasn't a major problem with the IPCC been the process and distortions of findings that work their way into the Summary for Policy Makers as a result of political wheeling and dealing by various heads of delegations? Isn't this what led Richard Toll to resign and has been a subject of criticism by Judith Curry and others?
I have heard these arguments, but I haven’t ever considered the production of the SPM to be a big deal. Anyone can read the full report, and most people get their spin on it from the media or trusted interpreters (including unreliable sources!)
Roger, the point that I am dancing around here is that citing the detailed scientific reports is an effective means of communicating your message but at the same time it comes across as a general endorsement of the IPCC. When the IPCC puts together the SPM it is a political agenda driven document that is all that 99.9% of the Press, Politicians and their staffs ever read. The SPM provides plenty of snippets to be cherry picked and spouted about by the talking heads. This nonsense reaches 10,000 times more people than your excellent analyses. Furthermore the leaders of the IPCC like Christina Figueres etal ignore the facts and spout the same nonsense as the media.
Certainly you don't believe that there are many ordinary folks that read The whole report. They believe what they see on TV and read in USA Today or the NYTimes. They don't know who the heck Roger Pielke Jr. is.
I certainly agree that there is widespread lack of knowledge and misinformation about what IPCC actually says. It is not perfect but if it didn’t exist we’d have to invent it. I out the lack of understanding down to two things - the media and a general unwillingness by experts to call things straight. I don’t se the SPM as a big deal. 🙏
This has been an excellent series.
Clearly we need to be spending more on adaptability than wasting it on mitigation.
Thanks!
This essay by Judith Curry pretty much hits the mark.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/08/09/apocalyptic-versus-post-apocalyptic-climate-politics/#more-28923
Excellent piece as always.
With extreme events being a central need for climate mitigation it interests that they, at least floods, are not so extreme as in the past.