The Politico-Economic Repression of Climate Science

Common understanding perceives the IPCC Report as "A study by the world's leading experts", "The work of several thousand climate experts". With so many scientists involved, each paragraph has been argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process and made it to the final draft. The result is a document which is profoundly dependable albeit inevitably conservative. It is treated by policy-formulators and decision-makers alike as solid scientific ground on which strategy can confidently be based.

There are, however, two distinct and mutually incompatible functions, bundled together in an uneasy alliance, at the heart of the IPCC. It is the structural conflict between them that underlies the editorial dynamics that have been highlighted in this study.

On the one hand, "The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." It "scrupulously adheres to a high level of objectivity and credibility in all that it produces" and has established a globally recognised "ability to mobilize the best scientific talent that is available throughout the world". The sheer scale and competence of the scientific resources that have been brought together to address the most critical issue ever to face the human species, are utterly unprecedented in the history of scientific endeavour. The IPCC Report represents the culmination of this awesome process of assembly, analysis, scrutiny and integration.

Coupled with this scientific task is the intergovernmental control function of the Panel. The implications of anthropogenic climate change have been seen to pose a potentially massive threat to those powerful political and economic vested interests at national and international levels whose security and bottom line depend on the maintenance of the addiction to fossil energy. Strong denial of collateral damage to the environment is an inherent element of the addiction. Climate science confronts this addicted culture with the harsh realities, consequences and implications of its habit. In the name of the survival of humanity and of the planetary context on which our species depends, climate science raises the urgent imperative of a global detox programme.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that those elements of the international community whose profitability, lifestyle, economics and security are most at risk, have mobilised the most powerful defence against the diagnosis and treatment of the addiction. The damage limitation process has been one of containment, discreditation, raising of doubt, highlighting of conflict and uncertainty, selective suppression of information, and blocking access to power without regard to the consequences. The denial of anthropogenic climate change has been the most damaging deception ever perpetrated in the history of human civilisation. The decade and a half of resultant impotence and inactivity has lost us the window of opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change, made it virtually impossible to avoid catastrophic climate change, and brought us face to face with the looming possibility of a major global extinction event of cataclysmic proportions. During this period, the international record of political compromise and appeasement has precipitated an humanitarian disaster.

From its inception the IPCC has been subject to the tension between these two incompatible drives. Its conflicted primary task involves both the mobilisation of best possible scientific engagement with the global "problematique", and also the containment and control of the scientific endeavour on behalf of those vested interests most threatened by its findings. After the publication of the Third Assessment Report in 2001 the fossil-fuel industry recognised that the scientific information presented by the IPCC posed a massive threat to its future profitability and steps were taken to gain control of its process and agenda. The leader of the Senate in the Washington administration went on record at this time to castigate climate change as "The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people", a sentiment later echoed by the President himself.


Political Control of the IPCC Process

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri replaced the unacceptable Dr Robert Watson as Chairman of the IPCC. Dr. Susan Solomon, a senior scientist of the Earth System Research Laboratory at NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) was appointed as co-chair of Work Group 1 dealing with the physical science basis. Several other leading authors and review editors were also replaced by staff acceptable to the Washington Administration. Constitutionally the developed country from which the Workgroup co-chair is drawn is responsible for hosting and support of the section. WG1 was therefore placed under the jurisdiction of NOAA. Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher was appointed Under-secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, a post which also carries the role of Administer of NOAA where he oversees the day to day functions and lays out its strategic and operational future.

NOAA is not an independent academic institution, but is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and is "dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety" of the USA. NOAA personnel not only supported the scientific task of WG1, but a cadre of NOAA staff including Arun Kumar, deputy director of the NOAA Climate Prediction Center, also served as government reviewers of the final report. In a recently published survey NOAA scientists recorded a higher level of complaints of Government interference with their academic independence, right to publish, research agenda and funding, than any other institution in the USA.

The constitution of the IPCC WG1 carries within its structure a conflict of interests which lays it open to the charge of collusion in the management of scientific analysis of climate change. It is hardly surprising that the resultant Summary for Policy Makers was immediately welcomed and affirmed as acceptable to the Washington Administration. Denial has now yielded on the issues of the reality of the occurrence of climate change and its attribution to anthropogenic causes. It has moved ground to the denial of amplifying feedback, acceleration of climate change, non-linearity in system behaviour and potential feedback-driven instability. The outcome is a document which lays a necessary but far from sufficient basis for the formulation of strategic policy. Despite the best efforts of the global scientific community, pursuit of goals based upon this Report may contribute to the sustained profitability of the hydro-carbon-based industries, but they do not get to first base in the task of preventing catastrophic climate change.