I was looking at the transcript of a recent late line interview conducted by Margot O’Neill and was flabbergasted by Bob Carter’s lack of understanding of the IPCC. Apart from being confused about the IPCC process, Bob seems to imply that Australia’s most qualified scientists should not be involved in assessing the science and impacts of climate change. Here is the section of the interview that stunned me. You can see the complete interview here.
MARGOT O’NEILL: But while welcoming the reforms, climate sceptic Professor Bob Carter believes the IPCC should be abolished.
BOB CARTER, JAMES COOK UNI.: There’s no earthly need for Australia to be going to the United Nations to ask for policy advice on environmental matters.
We have our own scientists and we should consult with them, and CSIRO is clearly one of the cases in point, and CSIRO should certainly be consulted.
However, they’ve been associated closely with the IPCC. They have 40 of their staff advise the IPCC. So, what’s really important is that the policy advice to the Government is contested. It needs due diligence done on it and an independent audit, in a sense.
You must consider many lines of scientific advice. You can’t just take a monopoly advice from one body, be that body the IPCC or CSIRO or the Bureau of Meteorology.
MARGOT O’NEILL: The next IPCC report on the state of climate change is due in three years.
Err um … who should we be getting to look at this report? The guy at the supermarket? My local veterinarian? Geologists who have nothing published in the peer-reviewed literature? Who, Bob, who?
Well, thats actually the key here – whatever has been said of the emails, or the IPCC review or the criticism of the so called “clique” of climate scientists, NONE of it has undermined the fundamental science.
That greenhouse gases warm our atmosphere; that we have increased them enormously in our atmosphere; that we are set to increase them even further; and that we have certain evidence that the climate is warming as a result.
Whether the increases will be 2.5 degrees, 3.5 degrees or 6 degrees makes very little difference when faced with the basic decision to reduce emissions or not.
Quite clearly, if we don’t we are in for an horific time of human misery.
Of course we cannot demolish the IPCC, its the best we have for assembling advice for policy makers.