IPCC must strengthen climate study standards

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has finally recognized it has a credibility problem.

IPCC officials announced recently that an independent review of the agency’s Fourth Assessment on the world’s climate after a number of errors were found in the 3,000- page report, including the mistaken prediction that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.

The review could not come at a better time, since polls taken following the Climategate scandal indicate that the public is becoming increasingly skeptical about claims that human beings are contributing to global climate change – even though the evidence is strong.

Although the science is complex, it will be up to the general public – at least in democratic societies – to decide whether their governments will make the massive investments and social changes needed to stem global climate change.

That’s why it is imperative the IPCC develop procedures that ensure the most accurate and up-to-date data are included in its reports.

The U.N. has picked the InterAcademy Council, which is composed of the heads of the world’s leading scientific academies, to conduct the review.

“Our goal will be to assure nations around the world that they will receive sound scientific advice on climate science with which governments and citizens alike can make informed decisions,” said council member Robbert H. Dijkgraaf, president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Hopefully that will happen. While we still accept that increased carbon dioxide and methane are having a serious effect on the world’s climate, we don’t think scientists who disagree should be dismissed as crackpots or energy corporation shills.

At the same time, we’re getting tired of film clips of calving glaciers and stranded polar bears that the global warming camp uses to persuade us that world climate is on the verge of a catastrophe.

That’s why the review of IPCC procedures should be done as quickly as possible. The public needs unvarnished facts on which it can base its conclusions. False or misleading data will exacerbate the problem no matter which side of the global warming problem you’re on.