Change of communication tune at the IPCC?

A week ago, I had posted an open letter to the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The IPCC does not have a history of being particularly responsive – and certainly not in a timely fashion, as Australia’s Tony Thomas had noted in a recent post at Quadrant. Following his receipt of confirmation that the IPCC Chair, Rajendra K. Pachauri had received not two PhDs – as advertised in his IPCC bio – but one, Thomas had alerted the IPCC. Yet he reported that:

IPCC has, 18 months later, still not got around to correcting it

One hopes that when they do get around to making this particular correction, they will do so in a fashion that is somewhat more transparent than that which Donna Laframboise had recently commented was her experience a few years ago.

But I do believe in giving credit where credit is due!

Readers will recall that my open letter of July 12 pertained to submissions that had been received in response to a “background paper” on the Future of the IPCC. And I’m pleased to report that, while I did not receive an acknowledgement or response from the IPCC Secretariat, my subsequent correspondence with Jonathan Lynn (IPCC Head, Communications and Media Relations) to whom I had forwarded my open letter on July 16, was cordial and informative.

So, thanks to Lynn, I can now report that …

The IPCC will be discussing this item at their 37th Session to be held in Batumi, Georgia, October 14-18, 2013. The Provisional Annotated Agenda (PAA, which I might add seems to be an improvement over previous such documents I’ve seen) is now available, along with a compilation of the 29 government responses (compared to 37 such responses in 2008) received to date. This compilation includes as an annex the letter of invitation as well as the background paper.

Both of these pdf files are available from links on the Batumi meeting page on the IPCC site, which I gather will be updated to include other relevant documents as they become available. It is worth noting that in an effort to reduce its carbon footprint, as indicated in the PAA:

Pre-session documentation will not be distributed on paper. The IPCC papersmart system will allow registered participants to access session documents in electronic format during the meeting on a dedicated web portal via individual credentials linked to their registration. [...]

One would hope that this does not mean that such session documents may not be available to the public. No doubt, time will tell! But I digress …

I haven’t yet had an opportunity to read any of this material beyond an initial skim; and it may (or may not) provide details which I could discuss in another post on another day! But in the meantime …

Well done, IPCC :-)

About these ads

2 thoughts on “Change of communication tune at the IPCC?

    • Brian, what “responses” are you talking about?! The ones included in the compilation or the “responses” I received from Lynn?

      This post is not about the “responses” from governments to the “background paper” per se, And why would you expect them to be anything less than bureaucratic, btw? They are from "governments" and, ergo, almost by definition prepared by bureaucrats and/or alarmocrats!

      This post is simply an acknowledgement that contrary to your expectation and, truth be told, to some extent – based on past experiences – mine, too, I did receive that which I had requested. And, as noted in my post, Lynn was professional, cordial and helpful during the course of our correspondence.

      Thanks to Lynn, this whole “Future of the IPCC” revew process has been put into a larger context by the background information that was not available during (or subsequent to) a similar exercise in 2008. YMMV, but I for one appreciate these additional pixels in the big picture, and wanted to give credit where I believed it was due.

      The IPCC (under the current guidance and tutelage of the likes of IPCC Chair, Pachauri and WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker … not to mention former UNFCCC head honcho Yvo de Boer ) foolishly decided to thumb their respective noses at the lifeline handed to it by the IAC – and opted instead for business as usual, in the hope of maintaining its primacy in the pantheon of the UNEP’s self-perpetuating, and Steiner-aggrandizing, acronymic offspring.

      This has obviously had some influence on the submission of The Netherlands. Did other governments get the message? At this point, I haven’t looked closely, so I don’t know. Is there any significance that can be inferred from the fact that a mere 29 governments (out of 194) chose to respond. I suspect there may be (particularly considering the … uh … decline since 2008); but at this point, I don’t know!

      But what I do know is that I really don’t understand your “look-at-me” one-liners – not only here but elsewhere – and what you think they might be adding to the discussion of the posts on which you’ve so commented ;-)

      And that’s my lecture for the day ;-) Deal with it, eh?!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s