What will the US role be in UN IPCC climate reports?

The world’s leading proponent of climate change alarmism is gearing up its next big drive and the US may or may not be involved. This massive effort is the next Assessment Report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, better known simply as the IPCC.

Their mind-numbing Assessment Reports, which take five years on average to prepare, run around 6,000 pages. They are consistently alarmist, and always will be, because that is the IPCC’s job. The IPCC is part of the United Nations Environment Program and it serves the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which aims to get trillions of dollars transferred from the developed countries (especially the US) to the developing countries, all in the name of climate change compensation. These are purely political organizations.

These massive reports are supposed to be scientific in nature. But as the name “intergovernmental” indicates, the entire process is run by national governments. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC. Everything is controlled by groups of governments, from the nomination of authors and the specification of topics, to the final approval of reports.

So while the reports are mostly written by scientists, they are just those scientists selected by their respective governments. Given that most of these governments support climate alarmism, which is a massive power grab for them, it is no surprise that the IPCC Report authors are die-hard alarmists.

The next IPCC report is called AR6 because it is the sixth Assessment Report done since the organization was formed in 1988, when climate alarmism was just heating up. As usual there are three distinct working groups, dubbed simply WG1, WG2 and WG3. Each group issues a separate report which typically runs over 2000 pages.

These reports are supposedly summarizing the existing scientific literature, but in reality the merely choose and use scholarly citations to support the one-sided argument for alarmism. They do this very well, so I call it artful bias.

WG1 is the physical climate science report, while WG2 covers impacts, adaptation and vulnerability and WG3 looks at what is called “mitigation of climate change.” In UN-speak the term “mitigation” means changing human activities, especially curtailing fossil fuel combustion, in a (foolish) attempt to stop the climate from changing.

Obviously this all assumes that humans are causing climate change, specifically really bad change. That we are not is not an option, so it is the job of WG1 to prove that humans are causing dangerous climate change. Thus their reports are always arguments to this effect.

The outline for the AR6 WG1 report has already been written by the member governments. As always the focus is on the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, especially CO2, and all the damage that various computer models say will come from this.

It is up to the several hundred hand picked WG1 authors to produce the detailed arguments for all this scary stuff. While the final WG1 report is not due out until 2022, these authors will be selected early next month. This is where it gets very interesting, for two reasons.

First of all, who will the US authors be? Given the Trump Administration’s avowed skepticism of climate alarmism, will there be a significant number of skeptical scientists? Or will there be a repeat of the recent Bonn Climate Summit fiasco, when the US team was composed entirely of Obama retreads?

Second, will there even be US authors? This question arises because the Trump Administration has declined to continue funding the IPCC. Until now the US has been the largest single contributor. France has said it will pick up the tab for the several million dollar funding gap, although it hopes other countries will chip in as well.

But as far as I know the US is still a member of the IPCC. If the US refuses to provide authors, or if its nominees are banned, there could be significant ramifications as far as the IPCC’s glorified reputation is concerned. How this will play out remains to be seen.

So all things considered, February might be a very interesting month in IPCCville. This is definitely something to watch unfold.


About the Author: David Wojick, Ph.D.

David Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

  1. Li D

    ” That we are not is not an option, …”
    Lol. Oh yeah. The author has pushed alot of buttons with this piece but this takes the cake.
    That we are not was the null hypothysis mate, and was the subject of the science that has concluded we indeed, are. Savvy?
    If you think the science is wrong, challenge it successfully and advance science more.
    Got any evidence to challenge it? Well put it out there cuz all i see is wacko conpiracy bullplop ad nauseum.
    Yous have got nothing because there is nothing. Not even a glimmer.
    Every discipline is in agreement. The consilience is overwhelming. Only the most naive fruitcakes disagree. Its on par with the flat earth loons who have never seen a bloody horizon.
    Dont even friggen bother denigrating computer models if ya wont accept current data on the changes so far.
    When you mob think NASA and BoM and hundreds of other organizations lie to you about data that anyone can check themselves if they want, with off the shelf equipment, you got zero credibility.
    Anyhow, keep digging a bigger hole for yourselves deniers. The world thinks you yank deniers are figures of fun, whilst getting on with serious analysis and attempting policy and agreement for everyones benifit, including your sorry arses.
    At least marginalization gives yous a sense of identity i spose. Sorta like a muppet motorbike gang or a drug cartel.

    • David Wojick

      Your crude diatribe aside, the IPCC’s version of the science has been challenged quite well. Hopefully now that the skeptics have the political power, we will get an official US challenge to match the UN’s official alarmism.

      • Li D

        Challenged quite well???
        Hahahahaha. Cmon fella.
        Which particular part or parts of established AGW science has been challenged quite well ( ie overturned or has enough evidence to raise doubts to statistical validity).
        Various ( and comprehensive ) biosphere data collections ?
        Techniques of data collection ?
        Statistical analysis?
        The physics?
        Tell us the big weak point. The earth shattering breakthrough that overturned it all? The startling new evidence?
        There is none. You know it. I know
        Because the consilience is so bloody strong, it would take several major evidence streams to challenge it even half heartedly, and then you would have to rewrite some major league physics science to suit and then work out how the new denier physics paradigm fits with the rest of the universe besides denier climatology, and if it dosnt fit everywhere, you are bust again.
        Aint gunna happen.
        Deniers cant even read charts, so they aint about to rewrite the ideas on optics, radiation, fluids, and many other fields.
        Thats the task in front of you. Hahahahaha.
        Its interesting you seem to laud political interference in science as a good thing.
        Cant help but wonder what you think of political interference in the judiciary.
        Ultimately it dosnt matter. Science weeds out interference ( of all sorts ) by its own processes.
        All the interference in the world aint gunna change the physics, even if you burn every textbook.
        Face it fella. Yas refuse to accept reality so you loose.
        But please, reply with a short paragraph outlining these quite well challenge thingies you claim to know about. The absolute rock solid best ya got. That really does it for you, and validates your position above, well, essentially everyone, and whole libraries of research over hundreds of years.
        Just for the hahas.
        This is it. Your big chance to blow it all wide open and smite the NASA conspiracy.
        Stay tuned readers for Wojik v Science.
        Its gunna be huuuuge!

        Li D

      • Robert

        “..challenged quite well”

        Said wo any supporting evidence.

        Your average 6th grader couldn’t do that on a persuasive essay or research project and get a passing grade.
        “0 points
        Created citations which were incomplete or inaccurate, and provided no way to check the validity of the information gathered.” https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/middlelschresearchrubric.html

        Yet, you, an adult, seem to think those rules don’t apply. Interesting.

0 Pings & Trackbacks