place to pursue debate and discussion about the data is in the scientific
literature with its discipline of honesty and integrity and tradition of careful
peer review. It is regrettable, therefore, that most of those who have
challenged the scientific conclusions of the IPCC reports have chosen to
pursue that challenge in the media rather than in the scientific literature
where a more scientifically useful debate could be conducted.
4. The number of scientists who have taken the extreme positions mentioned
above and who have also contributed significantly to climate science is very
few compared with the hundreds who have contributed to the IPCC process.
5. Some vicious attacks in the media have been made not so much on the
science but on the integrity of the IPCC process and some of the scientists
involved in it. That these attacks possess no real foundation is illustrated
by the fact that they have received no formal support from any of the
delegates to IPCC, even from those countries strongly opposed to any
action concerning climate change.
9 The FCCC and the IPCC
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) signed
by over 160 countries at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 sets the
context in which international discussion regarding appropriate action can be
pursued. The development of the Convention’s agenda clearly requires continuous
scientific and technical input. The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the FCCC
has set up a Subsidiary Body for Science and Technological Advice (SUBSTA) to
organize this input. The IPCC is working closely with SUBSTA through a Joint
Working Group (JWG) to ensure that IPCC assessments are geared to provide
the detailed scientific and technical input required.
The Objective of the FCCC is contained in Article 2. It recognizes the need to
prevent continued change of the climate and therefore to stabilize the causes of
climate change. It reads as follows:
‘The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments
that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time
frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to
ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic
development to proceed in a sustainable manner.’
The IPCC has been at pains to explain that what constitutes ‘dangerous’ is a
policy not a scientific decision. But the need to make such policy decisions
immediately raises many scientific and technical questions. For instance, what
carbon dioxide emission profiles will lead to stabilization of atmospheric
concentration and by when? What effect will current proposed emission
See, for instance, ‘Open Letter to Ben Santer’, Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 1996, 77, 1962—1967.
An Overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
9
literature with its discipline of honesty and integrity and tradition of careful
peer review. It is regrettable, therefore, that most of those who have
challenged the scientific conclusions of the IPCC reports have chosen to
pursue that challenge in the media rather than in the scientific literature
where a more scientifically useful debate could be conducted.
4. The number of scientists who have taken the extreme positions mentioned
above and who have also contributed significantly to climate science is very
few compared with the hundreds who have contributed to the IPCC process.
5. Some vicious attacks in the media have been made not so much on the
science but on the integrity of the IPCC process and some of the scientists
involved in it. That these attacks possess no real foundation is illustrated
by the fact that they have received no formal support from any of the
delegates to IPCC, even from those countries strongly opposed to any
action concerning climate change.
9 The FCCC and the IPCC
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) signed
by over 160 countries at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 sets the
context in which international discussion regarding appropriate action can be
pursued. The development of the Convention’s agenda clearly requires continuous
scientific and technical input. The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the FCCC
has set up a Subsidiary Body for Science and Technological Advice (SUBSTA) to
organize this input. The IPCC is working closely with SUBSTA through a Joint
Working Group (JWG) to ensure that IPCC assessments are geared to provide
the detailed scientific and technical input required.
The Objective of the FCCC is contained in Article 2. It recognizes the need to
prevent continued change of the climate and therefore to stabilize the causes of
climate change. It reads as follows:
‘The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments
that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time
frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to
ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic
development to proceed in a sustainable manner.’
The IPCC has been at pains to explain that what constitutes ‘dangerous’ is a
policy not a scientific decision. But the need to make such policy decisions
immediately raises many scientific and technical questions. For instance, what
carbon dioxide emission profiles will lead to stabilization of atmospheric
concentration and by when? What effect will current proposed emission
See, for instance, ‘Open Letter to Ben Santer’, Bull. Am. Met. Soc., 1996, 77, 1962—1967.
An Overview of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
9