The climate change world is a fast-moving place. One look at Tom Nelson can tell you that. There are a lot of people who know quite a bit about the IPCC – and this does not include traditionally recognized sources – social sciences authors and environmental journalists. People stay on top of things.
But, one can look at the IPCC as a model of an unwieldy behemoth. Once can picture the people working in it – slow, bespectacled, having imbibed a steady diet of subaltern, tradionalist environmental tenets birthed in the mid-80s, which they consider the dominant paradigm.
But the ground has shifted under their feet. And more importantly, the people who question them and their tenets – have moved ahead. They are waiting at the other end of evolutionary curve, so to speak, waiting for the behemoths like the IPCC, to catch up if at all.
Twenty-five years of failure should have taught the bureaucrats at the IPCC something. But it hasn’t taught them anything.
This is because it cannot. The IPCC is a dead husk – it is scientifically inept and politically impotent. You can address it in the strongest of terms and you’d hear rarely so much as a grunt in response. Richard Tol:
Some people complain that the IPCC is intransparent. David Holland is a good example. Such sentiments are often expressed with a suggestion that this is because the IPCC is arrogant or malign. There is a third explanation: The IPCC has not quite woken up to this internet thingy.
Imagine an organization composed of bureaucrats appointed by governments of all the nations in the world. And then, imagine such an organization, trying to respond to emerging challenges. Yet, this is the fairy tale the climate world is living in.
Think about it – nations develop the most sophisticated weapons systems, espionage systems, communication technologies, pharmaceuticals and electronics. Even climate scientists have access to state-of-the-art satellites. But the IPCC doesn’t know to use the Internet. Why?