Evaluating the IPCC

Benny Peiser sent around a circular yesterday to his CCNet list about a potentially interesting project:

During the last decade, climate experts and government officials from more than 100 countries have unanimously agreed the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s analysis, its review of scientific literature and its predictions were carefully scrutinised by governments and generally accepted. The unanimous political support the IPCC has obtained from the international community represents a comprehensive consensus on the science and economics of climate change.
Despite this globally sanctioned agreement, there have been serious reservations about the way the IPCC works and how it produces its conclusions. Two years ago, the Economic Affairs Committee of Britain’s House of Lords concluded that there are concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, and the influence of political considerations in its findings. I am pleased to announce the planned publication of a special issue of Energy & Environment that will specifically address questions surrounding the structure, process and politics of the IPCC. This announcement solicits articles for consideration for this special issue.Papers are invited on all subjects related to the IPCC, its working and the way it produces its reports. Interested authors should send a brief but informative abstract of one or two pages as an e-mail attachment to me at b.j.peiser@ljmu.ac.uk (as I will serve as the E&E’s guest editor for this special issue)
Authors’ instructions can be found at:

Submission deadline for papers: 31 July 2007


  1. Potentially interesting? Why would you think that? Is there any possibility that the combination of Peiser and E&E will lead to anything other than an elaboration of prior delusionist anti-IPCC talking points? If they were any doubt, I would have thought that the reference to the excoriable (ht GS) HoL report would have done the job.

  2. It’ll be potentially interesting to see the same cast of usual suspects trying to sound serious in their chimp chatter-like trashing of the messenger to drown out the fact that they have no alternative message of their own.



  3. I try to critically evaluate everything, both consensus and sceptical views.

    The IPCC papers are normal overviews and subject to normal scientific scrutiny.

    If you behave otherwise, you are no scientists.

    I look forward to critically evaluate the E&E’s special edition, too.

  4. Hopefully, Timo, the papers received will be by scientists and not the same cast of usual suspects.

    Hence the ‘potentially interesting’.



Comments are closed.