New analysis: Chinese and Saudi Diplomats Water Down Global Warming Estimates

New analysis: Chinese and Saudi Diplomats Water Down Global Warming Estimates
on

This is a DeSmogBlog release sent out to media this morning:

ANALYSIS OF LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOWSINAPPROPRIATE AND UNJUSTIFIEDPOLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT

Chinese and Saudi Diplomats Water Down Global Warming Estimates

VANCOUVER – A detailed analysis of the recently released report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows what one leading author calls “inappropriate and unjustified” political influence by countries intent upon watering down the scientific assessment of climate change’s most critical risks.

The IPCC Working Group 2 (WG2) was reporting on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Scientists from 120 nations collaborated to establish reliable “confidence statements” based on the latest science.

But scientists say that political officials interfered with the final Summary for Policy Makers, and a DeSmogBlog analysis of leaked WG2 documents shows the language repeatedly watered down. For example, where scientists said, “It is likely that corals will experience a major decline,” the bureaucrats edited that to read: “Corals are vulnerable.” Where scientist said “hundreds of millions” of people face an increased risk from floods, the sanitized version reads “many millions.” Stanford University professor Dr. Chris Field said that amounted to “inappropriate and unjustified” political interference.

People have accused the IPCC of having a political agenda in the past,” DeSmogBlog co-founder James Hoggan said today. “But while critics say the IPCC is trying too hard to raise concern about global warming, the real threat is that risks are being understated.”

Dr. Field, one of two lead authors on the WG2’s North American Chapter, said American diplomats were hyper-vigilant in making sure every statement in the summary was totally justified by the underlying science – a degree of caution that resulted in some of the language being softened. Dr. Field accepted that as well-intentioned caution, but he said that real damage occurred when a few countries, led by China and Saudi Arabia, successfully lobbied to downplay the consequences of human-caused climate change.

The full analysis, a side-by-side comparison of a leaked version of the scientific consensus with the final, politicized document , can be found at www.desmog.com.

The DeSmogBlog is a project dedicated to clearing the public relations pollution that clouds climate science. It specializes in exposing attempts to muzzle scientists and downplay the realities of global warming, and identifying fossil-fuel industry-funded public relations campaigns for what they are. The DeSmogBlog is a project supported by philanthropist and climate change activist John Lefebvre.

Related Posts

Opinion
Analysis
on

Before the Koch brothers, Standard Oil realized the power of universities to spread its free-market ideology and prevent the growth of socialism.

Before the Koch brothers, Standard Oil realized the power of universities to spread its free-market ideology and prevent the growth of socialism.
on

Oil and gas exports from the Gulf Coast have surged by nearly 600 percent, and fossil fuel production in the Permian Basin has grown by 135 percent.

Oil and gas exports from the Gulf Coast have surged by nearly 600 percent, and fossil fuel production in the Permian Basin has grown by 135 percent.
on

The fossil fuel industry spends millions of dollars on shaping its image in an effort to block climate action. A new analysis shows a relatively small number of PR firms have aided this campaign from behind the scenes over the last three decades.

The fossil fuel industry spends millions of dollars on shaping its image in an effort to block climate action. A new analysis shows a relatively small number of PR firms have aided this campaign from behind the scenes over the last three decades.
Opinion
on

The fossil fuel industry is pushing for the U.S. government to support methods to capture its climate pollution. But how effective are these "carbon management" approaches, and what are their consequences?

The fossil fuel industry is pushing for the U.S. government to support methods to capture its climate pollution. But how effective are these "carbon management" approaches, and what are their consequences?