Un-chartered Territory


Andy Revkin of the NYT has a piece up “The two-degree solution,” which includes the statement:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, proscribed from making judgments about how much warming is too much by its charter, has focused on laying out what could happen as warming proceeds, degree by degree, demarcating a list of “reasons for concern” that build rapidly after such a warming.

Actually, I’d like to see the argument that the IPCC is “proscribed from” making such judgments, by its charter, to which the IPCC no longer provides ready access and which it has replaced with a soothing one-paragraph distillation of how it views its mandate, instead. [Moonbats and others who shout out the IPCC as "research" which supports their alarmism might take note of the second sentence, which opens "The IPCC does not conduct any research. . . "]

I do see that, like the IPCC reports — which have never referenced any work establishing CO2 as having driven warming now, or in the past — this still assumes human-induced global warming. I also recall that the same charter tasked them with supporting a possible future global-warming treaty (IPCC was chartered in 1988).

Informative to the IPCC’s view of others telling it what to do, however, is its serial refusal to answer the threshold question in the future global warming treaty, the UNFCCC (“Rio” treaty, 1992) and its amendment, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which is what constitutes “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (Rio Art. 2).

The IPCC says, each time it is asked to answer that threshold question — for some reason, governments had thought that this was the IPCC’s job and kept asking — that to do so would be to make a political decision, which is not their job.

That the IPCC seeks to steer clear of politics is as plausible a notion as that a question of atmospheric concentrations of GHGs and dangerous influence with natural processes is not a scientific question.


Subscribe to National Review