Can we trust the IPCC’s evidence?

The position of the IPCC’s chairman Rajendra Pachauri looks increasingly precarious (Getty Images)

As people in the UK’s science community took to the streets yesterday over science cuts at the Science is Vital rally in London, elsewhere science itself is more mired in controversy.

As we approach the 32^nd session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), taking place next week in Busan, South Korea, the position of the IPCC’s chairman Rajendra Pachauri looks increasingly precarious.  His eight year tenure as head of the UN body has not come without controversy – the most notable being Glaciergate, when an IPCC report used a “grey literature” article to claim that glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035, a date off by hundreds of years. Pachauri’s response to critics who raised questions about the IPCC’s claims of the imminent demise of the Himalayan glaciers was to accuse them of dealing in “voodoo science”, an accusation that backfired when the origins of the 2035 date were uncovered.

Given Pachauri’s clumsy handling of the recent controversies and the loss in the public’s trust of the IPCC, it is not surprising that he seems to be carrying the blame for the panel’s loss of face. Fred Pearce was the most recent to join the calls for Pachauri to be sacked, following on the heels of an InterAcademy Council report recommending that IPCC chairmen to be limited to one-term, one-report tenures – a recommendation which, despite the Council’s refusal to directly call for Pachauri’s dismissal, can only be viewed as a judgement upon him alone.

But this scapegoating of Rajendra Pachauri will do little to truly fix the problems that the IPCC is facing. While his handling of criticism has been embarrassing at times, the public’s lack of trust in the panel cannot be solely, or even largely, placed at the door of one man. The InterAcademy Council’s other recommendations do far more to reform the way the IPCC operates – better handling of criticism from report contributors, more accurate reflection of the uncertainties involved in the report’s predictions, and more open and honest communication about the panel’s processes and errors. These recommendations attempt to address attitudes and procedures which exist throughout the IPCC, of which Pachauri was merely the outspoken representative.

Even then, the IPCC faces a fundamental problem that no amount of procedural reform can fix – its reports have political purposes, with a wide spectrum of interest groups seeking to use it as a neutral font of knowledge to wield for their own purposes. IPCC reports are used by politicians to legitimise cutbacks and taxation, by environmental campaigners to oppose oil exploration, and by the 10:10 campaign to justify the exploding of dissident schoolchildren in a recent advert.

The IPCC’s aim to create some kind of consensus around the issue of climate change is unavoidably entangled within the demands and politics of these interest groups and their opponents – it is not a disinterested observer – and we must always ask ourselves, can we trust the evidence?

Throughout October and November, The Independent Online is partnering with the Battle of Ideas festival to present a series of guest blogs from festival speakers on the key questions of our time.

Craig Fairnington is the web editor of the Institute of Ideas. He is organising the debate “Can we trust the evidence? The IPCC – a case study” at the Battle of Ideas festival in London on Sunday 31 October (http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2010/session_detail/4086/).

Recent Posts on Battle of Ideas

• 'Abortion industry': A slur on the women who support their choice
• Opera for the masses, by the masses?
• Twitter trolls and the Health Bill
• The bitter taste of sugar prohibition
• Welcome to the age of bespoke cultural identities