The United Nationsโ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the world authority on the science of climate. But at the same time, it has been increasingly beset by controversies that call into question its approach, and its preparedness, when it comes toย communication.
Essentially, the IPCC releases highly technical reports, fairly infrequently, that get an initial flurry of mainstream media attention and then get attacked viciously until the next report comes out. And when attacked, IPCC has opted for an ill advised strategy of โhunkering down,โ as Andrew Revkin puts it. Indeed, following โGlacierGateโโwhen a very real error was found in one of IPCCโs reportsโIPCC came off asย defensive and was very slow to admit the mistake.
Following the various โ-Gatesโ of 2009 and 2010, a cry went out in many circles that we need to improve climate science communication. As a result, all kinds of communication innovations are now going forward, many of which are ably summarized by Revkin in a recent article in the Bulletin of the World Meteorological Organization (which was central to creating the IPCC itself inย 1988).
But where does IPCC fit in the context of this innovation wave? It still seems to be dragging.ย Revkin reports theย following:
As the IPCC prepares its Fifth Assessment Report, it does so with what, to my eye, appears to be an utterly inadequate budget for communicating its findings and responding in an agile way to nonstop public scrutiny facilitated by the Internet. I would love to think that the countries that created the climate panel could also contribute to boosting the panelโs capacity for transparency, responsiveness andย outreach.
I made this point recently in an e-mail exchange with three leaders of the climate panelโs next assessment โ the chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Thomas Stocker and Christopher Field, scientists respectively co-leading the reports on climate science andย impacts.
They all agreed that more resources and a clear communications strategy are badly needed. โDespite several years of highlighting the need for effective communications and outreach, we have really made very little headway, and I know that we cannot delay action in this area much longer,โ Dr. Pachauri wrote. โIf we do, it would be at our ownย peril.โ
Since Revkin wrote this, there is at least one positive sign. The IPCC just released a โCommunications Strategy,โ drafted at its May Abu Dhabi session, which says many of the right things. The organization will apparently be hiring a Senior Communications Manager and trying to coordinate a mechanism for rapid response. And there is much else in the document to praiseโbut I also note theย following:
There are significant resource implications in communicating IPCC work effectively, and the Panel will require regular updates on the financial implications of implementing the strategy.ย
Revkinย puts it a lot more bluntly: โwithout more resources from the 194 countries that sponsor the effort, I see scant prospect for concrete improvement.โ
It appears that the IPCCโs Fifth Assessment Report is due out in 2013 and 2014. So basically, the IPCC has about two years to really get together a serious communications mechanism for the moment when it is going to be needed most. Let us hope that the current strategy document is only the beginning, and that dollars will follow goodย intentions.
The IPCC, like every scientific organization, needs to understand that the work is not over just because youโve finished doing the science and published it. In fact, the work has onlyย begun.
